My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/12/1982 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1982
>
01/12/1982 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2007 3:29:38 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 4:35:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/12/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />1\ <br />I <br />,j <br />'j <br />J <br />.j <br /> <br />the Lane ,County Planning Commission, the definition of that policy be <br />expanded' to include commercial development in addition to industrial <br />development. His interpretation of this position is that the Cities could <br />annex land without having sewers extended; i.e., the North Gateway <br />site in Springfield -- part of that site might be used for commercial use. <br />It could be annexed; the commercial use could have interim services until <br />Springfield had the ability to extend sewers. <br /> <br />Scott Lieuallen stated that at this point that could not happen, except <br />with respect to those policies. <br /> <br />The Board went on to item 14 - support of Springfield Council's decision <br />on the Pierce property and approved it. <br /> <br />At this point, Mayor Keller adjourned the meeting at 11 :07 P.M. for five <br />minutes. The meeting reopened at 11:12 P.M. <br /> <br />,. <br /> <br />The discussion continued on item 13. Scott Lieuallen Mat~d that his <br />understanding of the item was that it would apply to commercially zoned <br />property or to commercial activities that were associated with the kind of <br />industrial uses that originally precipitated the proposal. Further, that <br />this policy is associa~ed with sites, not necessarily with uses. Emphasis <br />is on areas that have been annexed due to the need for industrially <br />zoned land, which cannot be sewered immediately and which have <br />commercial activities as well. <br /> <br />I' <br /> <br />, <br />,: <br />t. .~ <br /> <br />Q: <br /> <br />Jim Farah <br /> <br />Does this continue to apply to the industrial <br />land, specifically special light industrial sites, <br />that might occur in conjunction with commercial <br />activities? <br /> <br />A: <br /> <br />Scott Lieuallen <br /> <br />That is my understanding. <br /> <br />Q: <br /> <br />Jim Farah <br /> <br />Is it correct to say that this is different than <br />applying this kind of approach to a particular <br />property designated specifically for commercial <br />use? <br /> <br />A: <br /> <br />Scott Lieuallen <br /> <br />That IS the Board's understanding. . The Board <br />is not trying to create a device whereby all <br />commercial land either within or adjacent to the <br />urban growth boundary can escape the need for <br />sewers and annexation. <br /> <br />Q: <br /> <br />Gus Keller <br /> <br />Mr Farah, do you understand our position on <br />th is issue? <br /> <br />A: <br /> <br />Jim Farah <br /> <br />If I understand correctly, this amendment is <br />intended to include the concept that beside the <br />industrial activities occurring on industrial <br />land, the same idea of interim services applies <br />to any kind of commercial activity that might <br />also occur in conjunction with the special light <br />industrial site. <br /> <br />,;: <br />, <br />il <br />i <br />r <br /> <br />IV-A-16 <br /> <br />r <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.