Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/15/1982 Meeting (2) M I NUT E S . Eugene City Council Council Chamber, City Hall November 15, 1982 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Brian Obie, Emily Schue, Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, D. W. Hamel, Gretchen Miller, Cynthia Wooten and John Ball. ABSENT: Mayor Gus Keller. Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, was called to order by President Brian Obie in the absence of Mayor Gus Keller. I. PRESENTATION: II A TASTE OF EUGENEII President Obie introduced Jane Bigelow, representative of the Eugene Sports Program. Ms. Bigelow, on behalf of the Eugene Sports Program, presented desserts to members of the Ci ty Council to promote IIA Taste of Eugene, II an event schedul ed for November 16, at the Eugene Conference Center from 6:00-8:00 p.m. She said e nearly 50 of the area's finest restaurants would offer a sampling of delicacies to the public. The event will cost $12.50 a person and the proceeds will be used to support the Eugene Sports Program. Ms. Bigelow said ESP serves about 35 percent of the school children in Eugene (9,500 students), offering volleyball, softball, baseball, football, and soccer. She said half of the ESP budget comes from private contributions and fund-raising events such as IIA Taste of Eugenell and she invited councilors to attend. Councilor Obie expressed the thanks of the council for the desserts and said the community appreciated the fine work of the Eugene Sports Program. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Tax Exemption Application for Washington Abbey by Eugene Community Investment Company (memo, background information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Greg Byrne from the Housing and Community Conservation Department. Mr. Byrne said the application was for Washington Abbey, a residential rental development for the elderly at 10th & Washington. He said the application was before the council under a program adopted by the City Council in 1975 and amended in 1981. The program is set forth in Oregon State Law, which allows e cities to adopt a program and grants the cities relatively wide latitude in setting the area where the program applies and in setting the standards and guidelines under which the program operates. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1982 Page 1 Mr. Byrne said the subject property was currently occupied by a church building which will be retained on the site and renovated for professional office space - on two of its three floors. In addition, there will be new construction of 53 residential units for the elderly to be rented at market rates and not subsidized. Mr. Byrne explained the tax exemption program is based upon the Metropolitan General Planls goal to provide 2400 units of new residential housing within one mile of the City center by the year 2000. In establishing that goal, the City Council recognized that certain incentive programs would probably be necessary to attract developers into this area. In adopting the program, the City Council was required by State law to make a finding that these programs would probably not happen without the incentive provided by the Tax Exemption Program. Ms. Wooten asked the exact tax loss to the City if the council granted this tax exemption. Mr. Byrne said he could not give the exact figure. He said he could give a projection based on what has happened in two previous projects approved under the program. He said the exemption was on improvements only and only those improvements directly related to the residential units. The commeY'Ci al improvements will continue to be assessed and taxed. The 1 and wi 11 conti nue to be assessed and taxed and will be indexed annually. f'llr. Byrne said when property comes before the council in this program, the assessments on the land and the improvements are very low because they are underdeveloped. After the project is completed, the land tends to be reassessed significantly higher. In practice, Mr. Byrne said the City has not lost money and the property has had a slightly larger tax bill the year following comple- tion of the project than it previously had. e !vIr. Byrne said the best estimate of the tax exemption on the Washington Abbey project would be based on an appraisal performed about one year ago by an independent appraiser which put the value of the tax exemption for this project at about $500,000 over the 10-year period. Ms. Wooten asked what consideration was given in the staff report to the findings in 1981 of the Hearings Official regarding this project. Mr. Byrne said the Hearings Official did deny a Conditional Use Permit for this project and that decision was appealed to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission overturned the decision of the Hearings Official and adopted positive findings. He said the negative findings of the Hearings Official were provided to council members by an opponent of the project and not by staff. He said staff did not provide either set of findings since the Conditional Use Permit was not an issue at this hearing. Mr. Byrne said in essence the Planning Commission had over- turned the Hearings Official IS findings and staff did not consider them in making its recommendation. Mr. Lindberg said if the former use of the property was as a church, then that meant the property was not on the tax rolls. He commented that he was trying to get the $500,000 tax loss into perspective. Mr. Byrne said the term "tax loss" was not correct. He said the tax exemption, if granted, would mean a redistri- bution of the tax burden. The City's tax revenues would not be reduced as a result of the exemption. To the extent that this property will pay less taxes then it otherwise would have, that burden may be shifted to every other taxpayer i n the City. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1982 Page 2 Mr. Lindberg said his clarification was intended to note that since the property e was used as a church and was not on the tax rolls, with completion of the project in question, at least part of the property will be taxed and there will be a gain for the City. Ms. Schue asked if the $500,000 was the total property tax. Mr. Byrne said it was the estimated amount of tax on the improvements. Ms. Schue said 30 percent of that amount would be the City's and the rest would be other taxing agencies. Mr. Ball asked if the present office space use was being taxed. Mr. Byrne said to the best of his knowledge it would be. Public hearing was opened. Merrill Kittinfer, architect for the Washington Abbey project, said as part of the Conditiona Use Permit granted by the Planning Commission, the project developers were allowed to use some space in the church building for an office, but only for a short time while the project plans were developed. He said it was not technically an office building at the present time. Mr. Kittinger introduced the positive findings of the Planning Commission into the record. He said the finding responded to every point raised by the Hearing Official and the Planning Commission came to a different conclusion. Mr. Kittinger read the following from the Planning Commission's findings: "that the location, size, design, and operating characteristices of the proposed development are such that it will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and e surrounding neighborhoods." Mr. Kittinger said on the basis of that, the City has executed a Conditional Use Agreement with the developer for the development of the property. He said the council should also be aware that the developers have a building permit and the development has gone through the entire planning process, satisfying all code requirements for the project. He said the Joint Housing Committee had recommended approval of the tax exemption application. Mr. Kittenger made reference to the points raised in the written statement to the council from an opponent of the project. He felt those technical points did not relate directly to the tax exemption status. Mr. Kittenger said the diagra- matic plans distributed to the council were prepared over a year ago and did not represent the exact plans which show the common spaces in the design. He said he had a copy of the exact plans if the council wished to review them. Jonathan Stafford, 1060 Madison Street, said he supplied the Hearings Official's findings to the council because he felt the Official had made some good points. He noted he had also submitted extensive written testimony about the Washington Abbey project and would only expand on it. Mr. Stafford said Washington Abbey had been cleverly presented, but he believed it was reasonable to inquire whether or not the project really qualified under the guidelines for tax exemption. For example, he said the outdoor living space seemed adequate to him at first and it was not until he actually calculated the area of these spaces that he concluded that the amount merely met the require- ments of the zoning ordinance and was not in excess of those requirements. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1982 Page 3 Mr. Stafford said he had always been a supporter of the tax exemption program e and felt that in many cases, the provision of the housing per se was sufficient public benefit to qualify a project for the tax exemption. However, in the case of the Wasington Abbey project, Mr. Stafford believed a closer examination was called for. He said someone should have been looking over the developer's shoulder when he (the developer) decided to build 4-foot wide corridors that will not allow two wheelchairs room to pass; apartments that do not even have a view of the sky, much less a view of anything outside; lot units for the elderly; and the failure to include a ground level lobby for people to wait in. Mr. Stafford agreed that according to the standards and guidelines the project possessed an undeniable public benefit as it is defined. He felt the project should provide more. He said projects that receive the tax exemption are required to have a positive impact on the neighborhood. He did not believe this aspect had received proper consideration. He said to say that the Planning Commission dealt with this issue when it overturned the Hearing Official vastly overstated the case. He said having a minimal impact on the neighborhood was a long way from having a positive impact. Mr. Stafford hoped he had been able to convey in his written material just how large and massive this project will be. He said it was so large, that if it were proposed for the north side of the street, it couldn't be built. He said there was not enough volume within the space created by the sun exposure planes to allow this kind of density on the north side. Mr. Stafford said the question of neighborhood stability had not been adequately addressed in any of the previous deliberations. Tenure could be one measure of e neighborhood stability and Mr. Stafford said the developers felt the tenants of Washington Abbey will remain in the neighborhood longer than is usual for the neighborhood. While this seemed possible to Mr. Stafford, he also felt that because the residents may be older that they may, in fact, reside there a shorter time than usual. If neighborhood stability is measured by the pressure placed on nearby properties for re-development, then Mr. Stafford felt Washington Abbey may prove to be a de-stabilizing influence on the neighborhood. He didn't feel that this type of project was what the framers of the Downtown Westside Mixed Use District had in mind when the ordinance was written. Mr. Stafford questioned whether some of the public benefits listed for Washington Abbey were more than were required by present laws, ordinances or regulations. If the council approves this project, Mr. Stafford said he hoped it was not encouraging policies of 75 percent lot coverage or putting required parking for businesses behind locked doors. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hamel said advertisements for this project asked for $1000 which would be put in escrow. He asked the purpose of the $1000. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1982 Page 4 John Rood, marketing director for the project, said the $1000 commitment placed e a person's name on a waiting list. About halfway through constuction, the people on the waiting list will be given a chance to walk through the building and see the design. At that time, if the people wish to withdraw their $1000, they will receive it in full plus 12 percent guaranteed interest. If they decide to stay with the project, Mr. Rood said the money is applied to their rent or lease. The money is not used for any project development costs. Mr. Hamel asked about a long-range rental plan also advertised by the project developers. Mr. Rood said he was not aware of that plan. Ms. Wooten asked if there had been changes to the project design since the Hearings Official had seen the plans and if the project still covered 75 percent of the actual square footage of the space. Mr. Kittenger read the findings of the Planning Commission as follows: "The maximum building coverage in the Mixed Use District is 60 percent. The maximum parking coverage allowed is 30 percent. The overall coverage cannot exceed 80 percent. The Washington Abbey's structure itself only covers 73 percent which is in excess of the building coverage requirement; however, because the building covers the parking, the parking does not contribute to additional overall coverage." Mr. Kittenger said it was the decision of the Planning Commission to allow the compromise. As part of the Conditional Use process, and as the building takes more specific form, drawings are resubmitted to the Planning Department for its final review. Mr. Kittenger said some minor changes were made which were submitted to the Planning Department. The department saw those changes as minor modifications and approved them. e Ms. Wooten asked who the developers were. Mr. Kittenger said Randall Brandt, local businessman, was the principal person involved in the project. Ms. Wooten said she understood the proposed rent, including one meal a day, was in the vicinity of $1000 a month. Mr. Rood said research had shown the developers that a considerable amount of housing was available for low-income elderly. There were few options offered to middle-income seniors. Mr. Rood said this latter market is the one being addressed by the Washington Abbey project. He said the project was not subsidized by any government funding program. He said approxi- mately 85 percent of the project is on a waiting list. Mr. Rood said the project has two different financial plans for occupancy. One is a rental plan and a one bedroom unit begins at $600 a month. The other plan is a life-estate plan whereby a resident pays a membership fee in the beginning and has use of the living space for the rest of their life. If they should suffer a physical disability and chose to relocate in a nursing home or a convalescent center, the Washington Abbey pays for 50 percent of the health care costs. Mr. Rood said the project was trying to address people's needs that go on for many years. Mr. Lindberg noted that the Westside Neighborhood Quality Project was pleased that the project developers had been responsive to their requests for integrating the project into the neighborhood. Mr. Kittenger said the facilities at the Washington Abbey will be available on a sponsorship basis to groups and individuals from the community. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1982 Page 5 Mr. Lindberg asked further clarification on the policy for downtown and whether e the provision of housing was enough of public benefit to justify the tax exemp- tion. Mr. Byrne said there was a spectrum for looking at public benefit in this program. He said on one end of the spectrum, the housing is enough public benefit. At the other end of the spectrum, the expectation is for public benefit in "bricks and mortar" and from the beginning. He said the City's position was closer to the end of the spectrum where the housing was sufficient public benefit. However, he said certain standards and guidelines for aspects of the project give the City Council and staff the opportunity to negotiate with a developer and to reject a development outright if it does not meet certain standards. Mr. Lindberg asked Mr. Kittenger to respond to the points raised by Mr. Stafford. Mr. Kittenger said the guidelines fall into two categories; one relates to the facilities themselves, and the other regards neighborhood stability. The developers feel that senior residents will be a stabilizing influence on the neighborhood. They will have average or above average incomes which will help support downtown business and the public transportation system. Mr. K i ttenger said senior residents typically look out their windows and keep an eye on the neighborhood. He said the fact that Washington Abbey will have funds in perpetuity for upkeep and maintenance of the property was also a stabilizing influence in the neighborhood. Regarding the facilities, Mr. Kittenger said it was the developers intention to support alternative means of transportation by providing covered bike parking and encouraging car pooling. Mr. Kittenger said determining the exact amount of energy conservation provided by the building's design was difficult, but the plans submitted to the Building Department included 21 X 6' walls, R-19 insulation plus 2 inches of styrofoam, wood windows with e double glazing and other features which more than satisfied the Building Department's concerns regarding energy conservation. Regarding the guideline about encouraging community use, Mr. Kittenger said many of the facilities will be available on a sponsorship basis. Two stories will be devoted to commercial use, such as offices or small service-oriented businesses. A vest-pocket park will be provided. The parking is not only covered, but is screened and secured by radio controlled doors. Mr. Kittenger felt the design more than satisfied the criteria for public benefit. Mr. Ball asked if the marketing research described by Mr. Rood was local. Mr. Rood said the majority of elderly housing projects in the Eugene area were targeted to low-income. He said the research used was both national and local in nature. Mr. Ball asked if staff had any comment on the need for housing for higher income elderly. Mr. Byrne said he had no scientific data. He said one other project in town is nearly identical in rental structure and they were very helpful to the staff in analyzing whether there was a need for housing in this price range. That project has a 10-year waiting list. Ms. Schue provided a brief history of how the public benefit criteria were developed for this program. She said in a previous project of a similar nature, a committee worked with the architect to develop a list of public benefits that had to be provided before the project could qualify for the tax exemption program. She said the committee system proved to be time consuming. As a result, the program was restructured so that now projects receive a preliminary - recommendation from staff with a review by the Joint Housing Committee and final action by the City Council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1982 Page 6 Ms. Wooten said she represented the area close to where the Washington Abbey e will be built and she had several concerns. She felt the project was far out of scale with the transition nature of the neighborhood in relationship to downtown. She said it was a huge project in terms of height and bulk, and even though it would probably be attractive, it would dwarf neighboring single-family homes. She said the intent of the tax exemption ordinance was to encourage compact urban growth in housing in the downtown area. Overall, she said she would support the proposal. Ms. Wooten said she had some specific concerns regarding the tax exemption for Washington Abbey. One was a request for a bus shelter for the area as a public benefit, primarily because of the high percentage of senior citizens who live or attend activities in the area and who find it difficult to use the bus system for lack of a waiting area. Ms. Wooten felt it was also time for the council to look again at the criteria for public benefit, keeping in mind the possibility that different criteria might apply to different kinds of housing and should there be a tiered approach to tax exemption according to the kind of housing proposed. Ms. Wooten felt very uncomfortable about the project and hoped that it didn't overwhelm the livability of the entire neighborhood. Mr. Obie suggested that staff provide Ms. Wooten with the minutes of all the meetings held to determine the public benefit criteria. Ms. Wooten said perhaps those councilors who did not participate in those meetings would also like to review and discuss the public benefit criteria. Ms. Miller said questions of scale regarding this project were very serious and she was very doubtful that this project could be said to be in scale with the e neighborhood. However, she felt that was only marginally relevant to the issue before the council and the public detriment related to the scale of the project was not sufficient, in her mind, to disapprove the tax exemption application. Ms. Miller said after participating in the round of discussions regarding public benefit, she had come to the conclusion that the provision of housing was itself a substantial part of the public benefit. She agreed that the housing had to meet certain standards and a certain amount of public benefits had to be included. However, the dominant benefit was the provision of quality and reasonably affordable housing. Mr. Ball said he would oppose the application because he felt this was an inappropriate use of this particular piece of property in the Mixed Use District. He also felt the public benefit argument was extremely weak. He said his major objection was that the tax exemption would be passed on to already overburdened taxpayers. Mr. Lindberg said he believed the benefits outweighed the problems related to this project. With regard to shifting the taxes to other taxpayers, Mr. Lindberg said he favored increasing density in the downtown area and felt it was based on a cost-saving through rehabilitation instead of new construction. He said he was not completely happy with the project's design, but he felt the public benefits were important enough to be recognized. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1982 Page 7 Ms. Schue said the Joint Housing Committee reviewed this project on more than one occasion and came to the conclusion that there was sufficient public benefit. e She agreed this project would not be built on the edge of town because it was high-density, downtown-type housing. She was personally comfortable with this attempt to use an old building to provide mixed-use and a kind of housing that is in short supply in the community. She felt the project met the requirements and standards of the State law under which the council was operating. She said the major loss of taxes will be to the school district. Mr. Hamel said he was not against the Washington Abbey project per se, but was against using the tax exemption for anything other than low-rent housing for the elderly. Mr. Ball felt that given the magnitude of the new construction in this project that it was stretching a point to say it was rehabilitation. CB 2573--An ordinance approving the Eugene Community Investment Company application for multiple-unit property tax exemption. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2573 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Schue movea, seconded by Ms. Smith that the bill be approved e and given final passage. Roll call vote; motion carried 5:3; Mr. Lindberg, Mr. Obie, Ms. Miller, Ms. Smith, and Ms. Schue voted aye; Mr. Ball, Ms. Wooten, and Mr. Hamel voted no. The bill was declared passed and numbered 19053. B. Rezonings 1. Property located on the east side of Willamette Street, south of East 20th Avenue from RG Residential District to R-3 Multiple- Family Residential District (Jim Richardi) (Z 82-14) (map and background information distributed) Recommended approval by Planning Commission on October 5, 1982 Vote--6:0 Mr. Gleason introduced Jerry Jacobson, Planning Department staff. Mr. Jacobson said the zoning request involved a parcel of land located east of Willamette Street, south of 20th Avenue, involving 17,000 square feet. It is presently developed with a 13-unit apartment complex. The present zoning (RG) only allows 12 units on the property. Mr. Jacobson said an additional unit was added in the 1960's making it an illegal unit. The new owner wished to bring the complex into conformity with the zoning laws. Mr. Jacobson said rezoning to R-3 would do that by allowing 14 units on the property. The surrounding property is primarily RG (Garden Apartment/Residential), although there is some RP (Residential/Professional) property at the corner. The remaining property to e the east and south is zoned PL (Public Land) and developed as Civic Stadium and the 4J Bus Barn. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1982 Page 8 Mr. Obie called for any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. There were e none. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Jim Saul, 44 Club Road, representing the applicant, offered to answer questions, but did not testify. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Miller asked for assurance that all fire and safety code problems had been resolved. Mr. Jacobson said before the unit would be legal, the owner would have to file for an occupancy permit in which all building requirements, fire codes and parking requirements will have to be satisifed. CB 2574--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from RG Residential District to R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District for property located on the east side of Willamette Street, south of East 20th Avenue. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 5, 1982, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried 7:0, Ms. Smith was e absent. Council Bill 2574 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the motion passed 7:0, Ms. Smith was absent. The bill was declared passed and numbered 19054. 2. Property generally located north of Beltline Road, between Coburg Road and 1-5 from M-1/SR Limited Industrial District with Site Review procedures to 1-1 Special Industrial District (City of Eugene: Cone/Breeden area) (Z 82-17) (map and background information distributed) Recommended approval by Planning Commission October 12, 1982 Vote--5:0 Mr. Gleason introduced Jerry Jacobson, Planning Department. Mr. Jacobson said the Cone/Breeden site was one of five sites designated in the Metropolitan General Plan for special light-industrial development. He said the new 1-1 zoning district was developed to be applied to those sites. The concept of special light-industrial is intended to provide siting opportunities for firms seeking campus-type industrial parks for large concentrations of specialized - MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1982 Page 9 light industry. The five sites in Eugene were chosen based on locational e criteria contained in the Metropolitan General Plan including a minimum of 50 acres, 5 or fewer ownerships, good access, and ability to maintain a campus-like setting. He said rezoning to 1-1 would protect and enhance these sites for future firms seeking such sites. Mr. Jacobson said the Cone/Breeden site included 114 vacant acres and was surrounded to the east and north by vacant property most of which was included in the COburg/Crescent Special Area Studyand zoned R-l, R-2 and C-2. The property across Coburg Road to the west is zoned RA and Beltline Road is on the south. Mr. Obie called for any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. There were none. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Jim Saul, 44 Club Road, Eugene, said he represented the owners of the property who supported the rezoning. He said the owners were working on a moderate reconfiguration of the commercial and industrial north of Chad Street because of some of the requirements. One of the affects of that, according to Mr. Saul, will be to increase the amount of industrial land by one acre and give it a better configuration under the development standards of 1-1 and correspondingly reduce the amount of commercial land by one acre. That proposal will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council at a later date. e There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. CB 2575--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from M-l/SR Limited Industrial District with Site Review procedures to 1-1 Special Industrial District for propertry generally located north of Beltline Road, between Coburg Road and 1-5. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 12, 1982, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2575 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19055. 3. Property generally located north of Stewart Road, east of Bertelsen Road from M-2 Light Industrial District to I-I Special Industrial District (City of Eugene: West Park (Z 82-21) (map and background information distributed). Recommended approval by Planning Commission October 12, 1982 e Vote--5:0 MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1982 Page 10 . Mr. Gleason introduced Jerry Jacobson, Planning Department. e Mr. Jacobson said the West Park site included 77 acres of vacant property, bounded on the north by the Bertelsen slough and the extension of West 5th Avenue, on the west by Bertelsen Road, on the south by Stewart Road, and on the east by several smal.l parcels under different ownerships. The surroundi ng properties are generally zoned Industrial and developed with industrial uses, residential units, or vacant. Mr. Jacobson said the council had a copy of a letter from the property owners who continue to oppose the 1-1 zoning designation. Mr. Obie called for any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. There were none. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. There being no public testimony, the hearing was closed. CB 2576--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from M-2 Light Industrial District to I-I Special Industrial District for property generally located north of Stewart Road, east of Bertelsen Road. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 12, 1982, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council; and that enactment be considered e at th i s ti me . Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2576 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19056. 4. Property generally located north of the Amazon Channel between Terry Street and Danebo from M-l/SR Limited lndustrial District with Site Review Procedures (Tax Lot 1002) and M-2 Light Industrial District (Tax Lots 900 and a portion of 902) to I-I Special Industrial District (City of Eugene: Spectra Physics) (Z 82-22) (map and background information distributed). Recommended approval by Planning Commission October 12, 1982 Vote--5:0 Mr. Gleason introduced Jerry Jacobson, Planning Department. Mr. Jacobson said the site contained 102 acres, most of which is vacant except for the Spectra Physics development on Tax Lot 1002 and a few vacant buildings on Tax Lot 902 owned by Goodwill Industries. The Spectra Physics site involves 3 ownerships: Net Investments, Spectra Physics, and Goodwill Properties. The surrounding properties to the north are zoned Industrial and vacant, to the west are in the County, to the south is the Amazon Channel and some vacant industrial e properties. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1982 Page 11 Mr. Jacobson said following the Planning Commission hearing of October 12, 1982, e the Planning Department did receive letters from the owners of properties along Danebo to the east, including Tax Lots 400, 500, 800 and 801, wishing to be a part of this rezoning request. Because of legal notice requirements, those properties could not be included. In addition, Mr. Jacobson said the concept of 1-1 is to involve few ownerships and large parcels. Mr. Jacobson noted the receipt of a letter from Goodwill Industries indicating no objection to the rezoning, and a letter from Randall Hledick of Net Investments indicating continued support for this rezoning. Ms. Wooten said the letter from Goodwill Industries did not specifically object to the rezoning; however, it did note that the operation that they had originally proposed for that site would not be feasible under the new zoning. She said the Special Light Industrial zoning district had limited purposes. She asked Mr. Jacobson if he was familiar with the proposal that Goodwill Industries had made originally. Mr. Jacobson said historically Goodwill Industries had not been firm in their intentions for developing their property. He said the letter received by the council was the first they had submitted. Mr. Jacobson said he had contacted them and provided them with information, but they had never presented a concrete plan for developing the property. He said perhaps they hope to eventually put their factory on that site, but the Planning Department had not received any firm proposal. In its review of available land, the Industrial Lands Task Force took the lack of any concrete proposal from Goodwill as a go ahead to include the site in the 1-1 rezoning. e Ms. Wooten asked how many acres were in the Goodwill site. Mr. Jacobson said the site was approximately 10-12 acres. Ms. Wooten said she understood a recycling facility would not be an acceptable use in the 1-1 district. Mr. Jacobson said that was correct. Mr. Obie said he shared Ms. Wooten's concerns. He said he did not read the letter as stating that Goodwill had no objections, but that Goodwill was resigned to the rezoning. Mr. Obie asked for any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. There were none. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. There being no public testimony, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Miller asked whether Goodwill Industries participated in the Industrial Lands Task Force discussions and what zoning district would be appropriate for the present Goodwill activities. Mr. Jacobson said they would be allowed in the 1-2 Light Industrial District and 1-3 Heavy Industrial District. Ms. Smith said she shared the concern that had been expressed about Goodwill Industries. She said she did not want the City to shut them out of an expansion program that had been planned for years, but was not yet financially feasible. She said the service provided by Goodwill Industries to the community was very - needed. If proper communications have not been made with Goodwill, Ms. Smith said she would want to make certain that they do happen. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1982 Page 12 . . . Mr. Jacobson said staff did endeavor to communicate with them, but it seemed e Goodwill was not sure whether to hold on to the property and market it as I-lor try to develop it. He said they did not testify at the Planning Commission hearing. Ms. Smith asked if Goodwill was fully aware of the potential impact of this rezoning. Mr. Jacobson said Goodwill had received a copy of the ordinance and had consulted their attorney. Ms. Smith asked if Goodwill's financial situation improved, whether the City could accomodate their particular facility in the 1-1 District. Mr. Jacobson said the property would have to be rezoned. Mr. Lindberg asked why the Goodwill property was included. He wondered if it could be excluded from the present rezoning proposal. Ms. Miller said the Industrial Lands Task Force did go through fairly extensive hearings and meetings, attempting to ascertain what industrial land needs would be and then trying to further refine the locations of those areas where there were large contiguous parcels in few ownerships. She felt the council would have to be very careful in its attempt to implement the Metro Plan to go back now and significantly redraw those boundaries. She said it was not impossible to make changes, but it was more difficult than just deciding what the zone for a particular parcel should be. Ms. Wooten said her question was whether there was a simple way to rezone the Goodwill property if at some time in the future Goodwill Industries chooses to expand their facility. Mr. Jacobson said it was a possibility. Mr. Gleason said the council could certainly rezone that property if it wished. He said Ms. Miller's point was correct, however. The council was dealing with an issue that was substantively required in the plan, and if the council chose to change it, e it would most likely have to arrive at a different finding of fact. Mr. Gleason point out that there is, however, within the 1-1 (Special Light Industrial) zone, a provision for review of that zone in 3 or 4 years to see if it accom- plishes what it was intended to accomplish. If the zone is not working, then the council could reconsider the 1-1 zone. . CB 2577--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from M-1/SR Limited Industrial District with Site Review Procedures to 1-1 Special Industrial District for property located generally north of the Amazon Channel between Terry Street and Danebo Road. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 12, 1982, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2577 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19057. e \ MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1982 Page 13 . . . .. CB 2578--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from M-2 Light Industrial e District to I-I Special Industrial District for property generally located north of the Amazon Channel between Terry Street and Danebo Road. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 12, 1982, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2578 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19058. Ms. Miller requested staff to contact those citizens who wrote regarding rezoning of adjacent property not included in this request, explaining to them the publishing deadlines and the criteria for the the I-I zone. III. POSTPONEMENT OF ANNEXATION/REZONING REQUEST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PRAIRIE ROAD AND SOUTH OF BELTLINE FROM COUNTY M-3 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO CITY M-2 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND CITY INDUSTRIAL SIGN DISTRICT (Lloyd Maxwell) (AZ 82-1) (memorandum distributed) e Mr. Gleason introduced Jerry Jacobson, Planning Department, to give the staff report. Mr. Jacobson said staff recommended approval of the postponement. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to postpone until December 13, 1982, consideration of the annexation/rezoning request submitted by Lloyd Maxwell for property located on the east side of Prairie Road and south of Beltline. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to November 17,1982. jW~~ (Recorded by Joyce Edwards) e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1982 Page 14