07/21/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

industrial development that would provide employment opportunities for the community, that is an urban level of development and should take place within a e city. She did not feel the proposal concerned 1I1eap frogll development in terms of small areas of development allover the county, but concerned development within the Urban Growth Boundary and the City would tolerate some extra ineffic- iencies within that boundary to go after specific parcels that are particularly important for some specific reason. Until the City looks at a specific applica- tion, it will not know how much more money it will cost or how inefficient it will be. That was why she wanted financing added to the criteria. Ms. Miller said within the framework of her comments, she was prepared to approve the policy and to make the same evaluation of any proposed non-contiguous annexation as she would of any contiguous annexation proposal. Mayor Keller commented that once the City Council decided to claim land inside the urban growth boundary as urbanizable, he felt it made a commitment to develop it. How that development would occur was a new step for the council. He said when it was decided that cities would provide urban services, the vote of the jurisdictions was 6:0. The County asked the cities to develop the criteria for the necessary annexations and this proposal is a response to that request. He said Springfield may try a totally different approach. He sa i d i f a major plant relocation or major development was proposed, he would expect staff to be sensitive to the issues as would the council. He agreed with Ms. Miller that who the applicant was, was not necessarily as important as how does the council give leadership and direction to staff to do their work. Mr. Obie supported the comments of Ms. Miller and Mayor Keller. He said the council could only reassess the policy as it obtains experience in it and that e was what he liked about the tentative nature of the proposal. He said it allows the council to refine the policy as it is used. He felt the City had an obliga- tion to implement the adopted General Plan and had an obligation to provide industrial lands to satisfy community needs. He said the proposal answered that community need and at the same time is responsive and reflective of the planning effort that has gone on in the community for years. He urged the council to adopt the proposal as outlined with the proviso that it will be reviewed from time to time to see if it still meets the community's needs. Mr. Ball asked if it was absolutely understood that this proposal was strictly for non-contiguous industrial lands and would not be the first step towards an annexation policy for non-contiguous commercial or residential lands. Mr. Gleason said it was. He said in the adoption of the General Plan, staff recognized that industrial properties would be developed first, followed by com- mercial and residential properties. That is the sequencing for executing the General Plan and one which will be followed in developing the Willow Creek area. Mr. Gleason said there is a directive in the General Plan that says that when a certain acreage of residential property is reached, the City must have a certain reserve. If the numbers get out of balance, the council will be requested to make more annexations, and when requests come before the council, staff will recommend for or against the request based upon the percentage. Mr. Ball asked if criterion 2 would be changed to reflect Ms. Miller's concern regarding extraordinary costs. Mr. Gleason said it would. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1982 Page 8