02/15/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e - issue of Lane County zoning the property would be tested by LCDC and would probably be rejected as a plan element as inconsistent with its statewide planning goals. He stated that the land would have to be within the urban growth boundary and then designated for industrial use before it could be developed. Mr. Gleason said he does not believe that the Lane County plan will be approved with the Industrial Triangle property designation included. He said that action would violate the goal regarding urbanized land established by the LCDC. In response to a question, Mr. Sercombe stated that the property is already zoned for manufacturing uses. He said the issue is whether the property is appropriately designated in a comprehensive plan as suitable for industrial uses, the current designation on the County plan being Industrial Reserve and Agricultural. He explained that the issue before the County commis- sioners is whether to change those designations to Industrial for the property to be used for industrial purposes. He said the legal position is that the pro- perty cannot be designated as Industrial on the County plan. In response to another question, Mr. Sercombe said the County will determine whether the property is to be designated Industrial or Agricultural; therefore, a change will occur for the property. In response to a question by Councilor Wooten, Mr. Chenkin stated that the Eugene Planning Commission discussion on the issue of support of the EFU for the property was brief and that the commission was basing its recommendation to the City Council on past council action. Councilor Wooten stated that she was ready to support EFU zoning for the Industrial Triangle parcel, stating that she believes the City has proceeded in a conscientious manner to fund the infra- structure development of the property. She felt that support of the straight Industrial zoning would sabotage the Metro Plan as adopted by LCDC. Councilor Schue said it was her understanding that if the urban growth boundary was moved to include the property and it appeared as Industrial within the plan, then the City would be obliged to provide services. Mr. Farah stated that a Metro Plan Policy states that all urbanized land will have City levels of services. Ms. Schue stated that it is for that reason she is opposed to making any changes in the present situation. She said it is unrealistic to give any implication of service provision in that area. Councilor Holmer agreed that it is premature to make any commitment, stating that his primary concern is for a complete review of any proposal presented by the property owners or undertaken by the City. He asked staff if it would be appropriate to indicate in the testimony to the County that the City is ready to facilitate the review of a detailed plan for the development of an industrial park site without making any commitment. Mr. Gleason responded that the Planning Commission reviews and recommends the work plan for the Planning staff. He said the work plan is based on the General Plan which specifically stated that the City annex and service the industrial land inside the urban growth boundary as quickly as possible. He explained that the plan update is a major work item and that staff could perform the update if the City Council directs staff to drop other projects in order to accommodate that work item. In response to a MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 15, 1984 Page 3