01/12/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MOTION: Harold Rutherford approving item 15. MOVED and Jerry Rust Motion FAILED 4 - 1. Mayor Keller declared that there was consensus among the Councils and Board with that kind of definition. Item 15 - add statement to description of special light industrial, was next examined. Harold Rutherford stated that if the Pierce property was included, the Plan would contain seven special light industrial sites. The combined acreage of the sites would be approximately 800 acres. The City of Eugene had earlier indicated the optimum size parcel for a high tech firm would be 25-35 acres. In that case, there is enough land designated for special light industrial for at least 20-30 high tech companies. Therefore, a 100-acre site should accommodate three or four high tech firms. He felt that local businesses were being ignored for corporations being enticed to come to the area. There was no certainty that a 100-acre site would have three or four high tech companies on it. If the entire site was reserved for high tech use, there was a risk of wasting much land if the high tech firms did not come here or they were not interested in a particular site. The new language ensures that we will have greater responsibility in dealing with the-large sites. The proposed change would preserve, e.g., that 30-40 acres could be held, instead of the entire site, for high tech use. The rest of the site could be included in a more flexible industrial zone. As the Plan language now stands, a large amount of land might be off-limits to existing local firms. The proposed change would provide protection for high tech industries without unreasonably limiting the ability to address the needs of local businesses, if the high tech demand does not materialize. Mayor Lively disagreed with Commissioner Rutherford. He remarked that there are enough designations for the other types of industrial. Further, in some cases, the high tech companies buy 100-acre parcels to allow some control of what locates around them. To suggest that they be restricted to a 30-acre site would be poor planning, from Springfield's standpoint. Gretchen Miller stated already and concurred businesses. that with industrial lands had been overallocated Harold Rutherford about relying on local SECONDED The Board went on to item 16 - status of portion of North Gateway property. It was decided not to make any amendments to the Plan and the consensus was to defer to Springfield in this matter. IV-A-17 Item 17 - Bertelsen Slough had been discussed earlier so the Board proceeded to item 18 the urban growth boundary in Thurston. Scott Lieuallen said that it was his understanding that Springfield did not want to withdraw the urban growth boundary in East Th urston. The Springfield Council felt that much work had been done in establishing the urban growth boundary and there would be nothing to be gained by reopening the discussion. The Council declared it would deal with any new flood data as it became available.