02/08/1988 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

tit industrial park can be built to include both principal and support industries. He added more attention still needs to be paid to the issue of accommodating an industrial park. Mr. Vanlandingham said the dilemma facing the City is that the site must be distinguished from others for a better chance of approval by the OleO. However, the more narrow the criteria are, the more difficult it is to justify the amendments on the basis of need. Ms. Anderson reiterated Mr. Vanlandingham's statement that the issue is not growth versus no growth. She said the issue is about what makes sense from a legal and planning viewpoint. She reviewed the minority's reasons for opposing the amendment, including the necessity of a well- substantiated need and consistency between the comprehensive plan and the proposed amendments. She said the minority also favors more of a variety of uses at the park than the amendment calls for. She added the owners of Awbrey/Meadowview have also said they want a variety of uses at the park. e Regarding consistency with the comprehensive plan, Ms. Anderson said there is currently no zoning ordinance for the proposed amendment. She said the only example of such an ordinance has been adopted by lane County, and is too restrictive for the uses envisioned at the park. She said she disagrees with Ms. 8ishow over the City.s ability to broaden the manufacturing uses to include secondary industries. She said this would be in violation of the County ordinance. She pointed out that broadening the use to include light and medium industry also places the City in competition with other property owners who currently have unused industrial land within the UGB. She said the City should start from the beginning to develop a well-researched proposal to attract heavy industry. Ms. Nathanson said she is most concerned with the legal question that the amendment does not meet State criteria. She cited three issues that she said fall under the "problem of mixed signals" sent to the Planning Commission that in turn will be sent to the public. The issues are: 1) Does Eugene need large or small parcel sizes? She said the commission is trying to process both needs at the same time; 2) Is the proposal about heavy or light industry? 3) The proposed amendment is for 200 acres, but what is essentially being discussed is a park ranging between 200 and 700 acres. Mr. Holmer asked for clarification of the larger land parcels. Ms. Bishow said before the Wastewater Treatment Plant was purchased the property owners owned approximately 730 acres. About two hundred acres were later sold to MWMC, leaving the remaining 500 acres for possible development. She said the current proposal utilizes 200 acres, although it is understood the remaining approximately 300 acres will be proposed for development in the future. -- Ms. Wooten asked how the cost of expanding the UGB will be justified against the current capital improvement project schedule. Ms. Bishow MINUTES--Eugene City Council and Planning Commission February 8, 1988 Page 4