07/21/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

change long-term City commitments contained in the Metropolitan General Plan for servicing land within the Urban Growth Boundary. This would be a short-term implementation strategy that would establish criteria to review requests for non- e contiguous industrial land annexations. Staff recognized the concept was experi- mental. An application is pending for non-contiguous industrial annexation and staff would like authorization to proceed with reviewing that application. Mr. Lindberg asked what staff meant by experimental and did staff expect an ordinance to be developed once the concept was approved. Mr. Hayes said staff was suggesting this be experimental in the sense that there may be many issues to be considered in a non-contiguous annexation that staff was not aware of at this time in terms of servicing and cost efficiencies. Staff would like approval of the concept and the opportunity to review the one application to see what issues arise, rather than commit to a long-term strategy at this time. Ms. Miller felt criterion 2 was not clear about the extraordinary costs to service non-contiguous property. She thought the phrase should read "financing, time and phasing" rather than simply "time and phasing" as the two factors to be looked at. Ms. Schue said she was somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of the council approving the concept and staff trying it to see if the details work out. Mr. Gleason said the proposal had evolved gradually as a result of discussions about annexing property within the Urban Growth Boundary, particularly with regard to industrial land. It is a method for expediting the execution of the General Plan and sitings of firms. He said after discussions with department heads it was felt staff could proceed with the application and come up with a good product. After that application process is complete and public hearings have been held and the Boundary Commission has reviewed it, staff would like to e come back to the council for a reassessment of the procedure. That is the experimental nature of the proposal. Mr. Gleason noted that last year the council had changed the annexation policy with regard to the River Road/Santa Clara area and agreed to annex incrementally as long as it was consistent with the General Plan. This proposal is a further refinement of that particular issue. Mr. Gleason did not believe the concept would have been proposed had the County adopted the original suggestion of the City Council with regards to the Urban Growth Boundary. The County chose to adopt a different procedure. Mr. Gleason said the properties are going to be developed and if the City does not bring them inside the City limits, the City cannot bond them to pay for the utilities that will be necessary. Ms. Wooten said she had serious concerns about the proposal. She asked what was the substance of the experimental proposal; was the application for a large acreage, where was it located, and will it have a large impact? She said perhaps more details should be outlined before the council takes a final vote. She was very concerned about going ahead with "leap frog" annexations for industrial purposes and having the the council commit to a proposal which she felt was dramatic and moved from the usual City planning process. Mr. Gleason said he did not believe the proposal moved or was dramatic; if anything the City was being overly cautious. He said this was part of implement- ing the General Plan. The Willow Creek Special Area Study the council adopted e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1982 Page 6