Ordinance No. 20098 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORDINANCE NO. a o ~ 9 ~ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM AND THE WILLOW CREEK SPECIAL AREA STUDY DIAGRAM TO REDESIGNATE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS MAP 17-04- 33-33, TAX LOTS 704 AND 800 (wESTEC SITE} FROM LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL, AND REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM I-2, LIGHT MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL TO C-21SR, GENERAL CONIlVIERCIAL WITH SITE REVIEW SUBDISTRICT. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. On June ~, 1997, APC, Inc. submitted an application for a Type II Metro Plan diagram amendment, concurrent automatic amendment to the Willow Creek Special Area Study refinement plan}, and concurrent zone change to redesignate and rezone property identified as Map 17-04-33-33, Tax Lots 700 and 800, referred to as the Westec site, from Light-Medium Industrial to Commercial. B. This proposal came to the City of Eugene for action pursuant to procedures for amendment and refinement of the Metro Plan described in the Metro Plan and Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code,1971 ~EC~, which establishes the Eugene City Council as the approval body for Type II Metro Plan diagram amendments located within the incorporated city limits of Eugene. C. On June 13, 1997, the Metro Plan amendment application was referred to Lane County and the City of Springfield, and referral notice of the application and public hearing information was mailed to the Churchill Area Neighbors. D. On July 15, 1997, notice of the hearing was mailed to the owner of the property subject to the amendment, and to owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the subject property. E. On July 15,1997, notice of the hearing was published in the Eugene Register~Guard. F. On July 11,199?, the proposed amendment and notice of the City Council hearing on the amendment was mailed to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development as required by ORS 197. G 10. No comment was received in response to the notice. G. On August 5,1997, the Eugene Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request. As per EC 9.130, the Planning Commission hearing was the sole evidentiary hearing on this application, and all evidence in support or opposition to the proposed amendment had to be introduced at the Planning Commission hearing. Testimony in support and in opposition to the Ordinance -1