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