CC Minutes - 10/26/98 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C. Questions of Staff Ms. Taylor asked for an explanation of the advantages of staff and applicant preparing application forms. Ms. Bishow noted that advantages and disadvantages of each option were listed in the Agenda Item Summary and explained that if staff completed the application forms, the City could better integrate Planning Division and Planning Commission resources for their consideration. Essentially, the timing of preparing and processing the applications would be in the city's control if staff prepared the applications. She said that applicants normally hired professional assistance in the preparation of land use applications such as would be required by the proposed plan change because of the amount of expertise involved, but that it was not impossible for persons unfamiliar with issues involved to do so. Mr. Meisner asked for an explanation of the notice given regarding the current public hearing. Ms. Bishow explained that the property owner, Ms. Clark, and the Whiteaker Community Council had been notified of the hearing. She said that notification of property owners and residents within a certain distance of the property was not required because no land use application was involved. Mr. Meisner stated that he had been contacted by neighbors of the property who were unhappy about the potential zoning change. Mr. Meisner asked about the use of a cinder block building on the property in question at the time of the land use survey. Ms. Bishow replied that a sidewalk observation performed in 1993 had assumed that the building in question was a residence. She explained that there was no business signage, no off-street parking for the building, and its address was clearly visible. She said that it now appeared that business usage of the building had ceased at least one-year previously. She also said that a subsequent site visit revealed that the building continued to contain material used in a counter top and floor covering business and that it had been some time since the business had been in operation. Mr. Meisner asked for an explanation of the term "one development site" in a letter he had received from Mr. Clark. Ms. Bishow replied that adjoining tax lots were allowed to be considered as single development sites. She said that the property owner was only seeking to change the zoning of the property containing the cinder block building at 927 West First Avenue. Mr. Meisner asked if it would be possible for a future owner of property adjoining that under consideration to also request rezoning to mixed use. Ms. Bishow said that such a request would be possible, but that she believed provisions of the Whiteaker Plan would make approval of such a request difficult without also amending the Whiteaker Plan. Mr. Meisner noted that the single-family house previously on the property in question had been moved and its land covered with gravel. He asked if it would be possible for a business operating on the property proposed for mixed use zoning to use the property formerly occupied by the house as parking. Ms. Bishow replied that it would be possible, but that it would be considered a new development and be subject to existing Land Use Code requirements for parking lot improvements, such as landscaping. Mr. Tollenaar noted that recent court and Land Use Board of Appeals decisions required that refinement plan applications establish that all State Planning Goals are met. He suggested that doing so was a formidable task. He asked how often such applications were submitted by MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 26, 1998 Page 4 7:30 p.m.