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