09/11/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Hansen asked when the proposal was submitted and whether the staff had - communicated its weaknesses to the applicant. Ms. Brody said the applicant received a copy of the staff analysis which indicated legal difficulties with the proposal. Mr. Sercombe said his comments were incorporated into the staff analysis. He said the legal issues have been discussed for five years. Responding to questions from Mr. Rutan, Ms. Brody said the amendment request is part of the Metro Plan Mid-Period Review. She discussed the process. Mr. Sercombe said the legal issues are: Is there an alternative to the proposal? Is the applicant's review of the alternatives sufficient? Mr. Miller noted that the council had not been asked to judge the proposal. Jim Hale, chair of the Metropolitan Area Policy Advisory Committee (MAPAC), said MAPAC members indicated the situation has changed since the application was considered previously. Now, only heavy industrial uses are proposed, the applicant has agreed to annexation to Eugene, and there has been a big invest- ment in sewers in the area. However, MAPAC members were concerned about an appropriate designation for property on Awbrey Lane that is not included in the proposal, a response from property owners whose land was not included, how the proposal related to other industrial designations, a mechanism for pre- serving the area for industries that need large parcels, and an appropriate designation for the sludge site in the southeast corner of the property. He suggested the council and the MPC defer a decision until MAPAC has made a recommendation. e Several members commented on the issue. Ms. Wooten said the MPC should make a decision soon. She favored the staff recommendation to postpone consideration of the proposal until the alternative growth study is completed. She did not think the study was being proposed to support any specific decision. She did not favor accelerating the study. Mr. Miller would like to maintain the integrity of the planning process and he would like to communicate that the council wants to entice new industry. He said accelerating the alternative growth areas study would communicate both points. Responding to a question from Mr. Holmer, Ms. Brody discussed a commercial lands study. Ms. Ehrman did not think moving the alternative growth study up six months is worth $50,000. The Planning Commission gave the commercial lands study a high priority and she would like to back-up the commission. Mr. Rutan said the City owes a decision to the community and the landowner. He would like to accelerate the alternative growth area study. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session September 11, 1985 Page 2