Laserfiche WebLink
services were allowed in the I-2 zone, it would prevent the potential loss of Mr. Johnson's <br />business, located at 1110 Ocean Street, zoned I-2 under the current Eugene Code. He <br />added the City had received no complaints on the business or interference with <br />neighboring uses. He asked the elected officials to consider the reasonableness of this <br />request. <br /> Paul Vau,qhn, 180 East 1 lthAvenue, Eugene, addressed the code amendments that <br />are opposed to the I-1 campus industrial zone that is named the Special Light Industrial <br />Zone. He said there are five of those zones in Eugene. He had concerns about office <br />uses in the proposed code, as they are ambiguous. He added that the code is moving <br />away from a campus business park. <br /> <br /> Connie Berqlund, 2577 Harris Street, Eugene, stated she spent time working on <br />issues around the land use code. She added that many hundreds of people deserve a <br />great deal of recognition, especially the planning commission. She said voices and <br />concerns were heard that created the ideas and compromises that the code contains. She <br />asked the elected officials to have clear and open eyes to the impact to each <br />neighborhood of the land use changes. She noted that each neighborhood has a special <br />character, unique housing, buildings, transportation, and differing levels of growth. She <br />said they must be considered so the quality of life and viability can be maintained or <br />improved by the document. She asked the elected officials to tread carefully over the <br />homes of Eugene as they represent the biggest investment of time, energy and money <br />most people will ever make. She said what makes Eugene special are the neighborhoods <br />and they all deserve respect and should not be turned into human sardine cans. <br /> <br /> Dorothy Anderson, Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) Commissioner, read <br />her letter into the record. <br /> <br /> James Cunnin.qham, 1190 West 26th Avenue, Eugene, addressed the Land Use <br />Code on the refinement plans that exist and those that do not. He said he was concerned <br />when he found out at the end of April the need to codify the refinement plans to make them <br />applicable under new state law. He noted there is the exemption for needed housing that <br />has a potential to gut all of the existing refinement plans. He urged the council to address <br />that issue. He said that he lives in the Friendly Street neighborhood and it does not have <br />a refinement plan. He said that he recently reviewed the existing refinement plans and <br />came up with 11 pages of policies that have citywide implications. He urged the elected <br />officials to read it and dedicate staff time and the Planning Commission to create a <br />citywide refinement plan as a Iow cost alternative to spending millions of dollars it would <br />take to create a refinement plan for each city neighborhood. <br /> <br /> Robert Walker, 2575 Jackson Street, Eugene, stated he was opposed to the density <br />issues addressed in the updated code. He said he was opposed to the lowering of <br />minimum lot size in established neighborhoods. He was also opposed to the concept of <br /> <br />Page <br />3 - Joint BCC/Eugene City Council Meeting - May 31, 2000 <br />WD bc/m/00081/T <br /> <br /> <br />