Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Yordy characterized the issue as a debate between a market-driven <br />perspective and a strict, legalistic approach to planning. He said he is <br />still concerned with some of the legal points raised by Mr. Sercombe. <br />However, he said Awbrey/Meadowview offers the City a chance to grow and <br />add to its inventory something it does not already have. <br /> <br />Mr. Holmer said he is unsure about the division of fiscal responsiblity <br />with regard to infrastructure facilities. He asked if it is contrary to <br />public policy to expect the developer or owner to cover all <br />infrastructure installation costs. <br /> <br />Terry Smith, Public Works Department, said a distinction has to be made <br />between traditional infrastructure facilities such as sewers and water, <br />and others including public safety. He said most of the traditional <br />facilities are available nearby and would be installed at the developer's <br />cost. Public safety services are more expensive and do not typically <br />undergo cost assessments in new developments. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith said there have been cases, many in California, where <br />developers have been charged for public safety services in the form of <br />exactions. He said the City of Eugene does not employ such a practice. <br /> <br />Ms. Ehrman asked if the City can single out one developer to pay for <br />services that other developers do not. Mr. Smith said the courts have <br />stated that the City must meet some standard for fair distribution of <br />costs. Mr. Sercombe said the City charter also requires that the City <br />e assess public work charges equally among properties. <br /> <br />Mr. Gleason said over time approximately one-third of the cost of any <br />building is borne publicly, while two-thirds of the cost is paid by the <br />private sector. He said the fundamental problem of site development is <br />that the one-third/two-third ratio is not being upheld by both parties. <br /> <br />Ms. Wooten asked if the Planning Commission had considered incorporating <br />Awbrey/Meadowview and Enid/Awbrey in the context of a larger airport <br />vicinity refinement plan. Ms. Brody said planning staff has proposed <br />addressing the airport issue in the updating of the Metro plan. She said <br />staff is studying whether the airport should be included in the UGB and <br />possibly annexed to the City of Eugene. She said still to be addressed <br />is whether it would be better to wait on developing Awbrey/Meadowview <br />until after the airport issue is resolved. Ms. Wooten suggested it might <br />be beneficial to look at all the Awbrey/Meadowview and Enid/Awbrey sites <br />in the context of a broader airport vicinity plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Bennett asked how staff is addressing the zoning issues and other <br />potential industrial uses of Awbrey/Meadowview. If the council approves <br />the amendment, Ms. Brody said staff would translate the special heavy <br />industrial area language into a zoning district. She said the council <br />needs to answer whether the description in the amendment accurately <br />describes the proposed site. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br />and Planning Commission <br /> <br />February 8, 1988 <br /> <br />Page 8 <br />