Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />III. LANE COUNTY PLAN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ZONING PROPOSALS (memo, ordinance, <br />maps distributed) <br /> <br />City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Gary Chenkin of the <br />Planning Department presented the staff report, briefly reviewing the February 15, <br />1984, Planning Department memorandum. He stated that the Lane County Board of <br />Commissioners was taking testimony that day on the issue; therefore, staff must <br />provide any comment to the board that afternoon. He stated that staff plans to <br />submit a brief memorandum to provide direction to the board on the council's <br />opinion on the issues. <br /> <br />Councilor Holmer stated that his concern is with the land outside the Metro Plan <br />as addressed in Part II of the memorandum. In regard to the approximately 700 <br />acres of the Industrial Triangle parcel, he said the single ownership property <br />just north of the urban growth boundary has been seen as a potential industrial <br />park site. Mr. Holmer said the owners have their own plans for the property, <br />but these plans do not propose any amendment to the Metro Plan. He questioned <br />whether any other response can be given to the property owners prior to the <br />five-year plan update in 1987. Jim Farah of the Planning Department responded <br />that the Metro Plan is an agreement between the three major metropolitan juris- <br />dictions. He said that staff is recommending a continuing partnership approach. <br />He said staff with concurrence from the other jurisdictions can respond through <br />the major update or in the mid-year update in 1985, clarifying that staff had <br />not anticipated any major update in the mid-year review, but he acknowledged <br />that it is an opportunity. In addition, Mr. Farah stated that the property <br />owner can request that the plan amendment be removed from the process and <br />studied independently. In response to a question, Mr. Farah said he believed <br />that no additional barriers to a plan amendment would be created if the County <br />designates the property for farm use only. He said the urban reserve area in <br />the Willow Creek Basin is the next logical area for large-scale development. <br />Other areas for possible industrial development are the LCC Basin and the <br />Industrial Triangle. He clarified that State law requires that each area within <br />an urban growth boundary be zoned for some type of land use and that the plan <br />amendment process will require a review of the land use. <br /> <br />Councilor Hansen said the jurisdictional boundary is apparently on Awbrey Lane <br />under the Metro Plan; therefore, property to the north is beyond the City's <br />overall plan. He questioned if the City Council still has influence with the <br />Board of Commissioners toward its plan for that property. City Attorney Tim <br />Sercombe responded that the ability of the City to comment on Lane County's <br />process is a factor of its proximity; therefore, the City does have some stand- <br />ing to make comment. He stated that any land converted to urban uses must be <br />within an urban growth boundary. In response to another question, Mr. Sercombe <br />stated that annexation differs from comprehensive plan designation. He stated <br />that industrialization of the land would not require formal annexation to the <br />city, but it would require that some comprehensive plan allow industrial use as <br />a designated use. Mr. Gleason added that the City cannot annex or industrialize <br />the property unless it is within the city's urban growth boundary. He said LUBA <br />has already ruled that the land cannot be developed unless it is within the <br />urban growth boundary. In response to a question, Mr. Gleason stated that the <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />February 15, 1984 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br />