02/15/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- e - question, Mr. Farah stated the work item could be part of the update. Mr. Gleason said the work plan would have to be agreed upon by the City of Springfield and Lane County as well as the City of Eugene. He said that MAPAC is currently meeting to formulate the work plan. Councilor Smith said she wishes to keep the City's options open and that the City needs to look at future planning. In response to a question, Mr. Chenkin stated that staff plans to submit a memorandum to the County Board of Commis- sioners to reflect the City Council's direction to staff on the issue. He said the County will make its final decision on February 18. In response to another question, Mr. Gleason stated that the City Council has no responsibility to act, but his understanding of the Planning Commission's interpretation, past City Council discussion, and the adoption of the General Plan is that, in order for the land to be urbanized, it must be within an urban growth boundary. He said that any change of the land should be dealt with as an urban issue. Mr. Sercombe said staff is not recommending a substantive decision of whether the land is an appropriate place for future industry; he said staff wishes to state that a process exists which all the jurisdictions agreed to follow and that they are mandated to follow by State law. He said it is an urban issue and must be treated in an urban planning process. In response to the suggestion made in a letter from Michael Farthing, Mr. Sercombe said the suggestion is within the Metro Plan process and would be consistent with the law. Councilor Hansen said he is uncomfortable with telling the County what to do with its land. He said the property has had mixed-designation for some time and that he would feel more comfortable with the council not giving any input to the County on that issue. Mr. Sercombe, speaking from a legal standpoint, explained that a developer could apply for construction permits if the County approves the .land for industrial use. He said the council must assert that the land must be within an urban growth boundary for development if it wishes to preserve that point. If the council does not advocate that point, then the City loses the issue. In clarification, Mr. Sercombe stated that the City would be forced to accept the property use if it is developed within the County. Mr. Gleason said a public right would exist to use the land for a specified use once the land is permanently zoned. He said the issue cannot be avoided. He said that the City will have to deal with the development once the urban issue has been decided. Mr. Sercombe stated that the issue has been in litigation from 1980 to 1982, the issue litigated being the process by which the development is allowed. Councilor Wooten said she feels strongly that the council should proceed with the staff recommendation to address the issues. She said it is important for the City to maintain its policy consistency and that she does not want to be forced into a position contrary to previous actions by the council. Councilor Schue said she understood that the State would not allow the land to be zoned Industrial because it is outside an urban growth boundary and would be a Violation of the State planning goals and guidelines. Mr. Gleason said it is his personal opinion that the issue of urbanized and non-urbanized land is relatively clear. He said it is true that the buillding official cannot deny a building permit if the land is zoned Industrial. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 15, 1984 Page 4