02/25/1987 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e appropriate to propose an amendment because the property owner has been requesting it for several years. She said the Natron Site should be treated fairly. She said supporting an independent amendment is bad policy and is unnecessary, it sets a bad precedent, and it may result in court action. Based on the findings of the Alternative Industrial Growth Area Study, Mr. Rutan moved, and Mr. Miller seconded, to initiate an amendment to the Metropolitan Area General Plan to expand the urban growth boundary in the area between Awbrey and Meadowview Lanes to provide additional land suitable for heavy industrial use, and to request the Planning Commission and the staff to give attention to the following factors as part of the amendment process: 1. Consider any new or modified policies related to heavy industrial use that may be appropriate for inclusion in the Metropolitan Plan and to develop performance criteria for the property; 2. Provide as much property between Awbrey and Meadowview Lanes as is necessary to: a) ensure efficient access to both the Southern Pacific and Burlington Northern railroads; and b) provide for large parcel sizes; and 3. Consider whether the sludge treatment site should be included or excluded from the urban growth boundary at this time. e Ms. Schue said the motion is ,not consistent because Section 1 of the motion indicates that new or modified Metro Plan policies related to heavy industrial use will be considered and Section 2 excludes the Awbrey/Meadowview site from that consideration. She said the motion really directs the staff to prepare an amendment to expand the urban growth boundary to include the Awbrey/Meadowview site. Mr. Bennett said he cannot support a motion that does not indicate how much the urban growth boundary should be expanded and how large the parcels should be. He said the Metro Plan Update will not be approved for about three years and that is too long to delay consideration of the Awbrey/Meadowview site. He said the property is unique and there may be a use for it before the Metro Plan Update is approved. Ms. Bascom said she will not support the motion because it does not indicate how large the increase will be or how large the parcels will be. Mr. Holmer said the motion simply directs the staff to prepare an amendment. He said the council will decide about sizes later. Mr. Miller moved, and Mr. Bennett seconded, to amend the the motion as follows (material in parentheses should be deleted and underlined material should be added): e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 1987 Page 11