01/26/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- e e Scott Gallenbeck, 644 North A, Springfield, stated that he is an attorney representing Sharon and Terry Carlson, owners of Tax Lot 6100. Lot 6100 is a vacant lot adjoined by a bike path on the north, existing buildings on the south, on the east by back yards and residential development, and single-family dwellings on the west. It is an interior lot with no practical access. His clients also own Tax Lots 5900, 6000, 6200, 6300, and 6400. The problem with this zoning is that it makes the parcel difficult to develop. It is unusual to see property owned by one person split into two different zones. Under the Metro Plan, it looks as though all of this property should be zoned light industrial. There seems to be a conflict between the neighborhood refinement plan and the Metro Plan. They feel this property should be zoned for light- or medium-industrial use. If it is to be multiple-family residential use, it would be a very small lot. They do not feel it is desirable for residential use. It would represent a major loss of value for the owners since it could not be developed in conjunction with the rest of their property, although it is contig- uous. They would like to know why zoning is being done on a piecemeal basis. The property to the south should be zoned MU, but this has not been done. There seems to be no pattern to what is being done. He indicated that he would be available to answer questions. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Ms. Smernoff gave a history of the zoning for Tax Lot 6100. In 1971, the Planning Commission considered rezoning Tax Lots 5900 and 6100 from R-2 to M-2. Tax Lot 5900 was deleted from that consideration, and C-2/SR rather than M-2 zoning was recommended for Tax Lot 6100. Following the rezoning, the property was leased to a towing service. The Building Division initiated enforcement action since a towing service is only permitted in an M-2 or M-3 district. In 1973, another rezoning request was heard, with staff emphasizing the need for a buffer strip between the residential district and the railroad. Staff felt the C-2/SR zoning was a compromise since they recommended residential use. Tax Lot 6100 has never been used for retail use, is currently vacant, and is not an interior lot. Access is available through a 12-foot public right-of- way onto Polk Street. The rezoning is not in conflict with the Metro Plan. On page 1-4, the Metro Plan states that the plan is a framework plan to be aug- mented by more detailed refinement plans. The Metro Plan and the Land Use Diagram are not to be used as zoning maps. The statement that the staff did not refer to the Metro Plan in the staff notes is incorrect. The Whiteaker rezonings are not being done in a piecemeal fashion. Staff has rezoned areas where conflict occurs between usage and designation. Other areas have come before the Planning Commission this year. Up to 11 units would be permitted but not required on Tax Lot 6100. Ms. Wooten asked if refinement plans are advisory documents rather than zoning maps. Ms. Smernoff assured her that that is correct and they are based on detailed studies and citizen input. MlNUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1981 Page 2