10/25/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

:.. . . Mr. Croteau responded to concerns raised during public testimony. He apologized e for the lack of adequate coordination with LRFPD and recommended that the public hearing be continued to a future council meeting with the hope that staff could meet with LRFPD representatives and return to the council with a plan that would be acceptable to all concerned. Mr. Croteau said that the subject property could be served by a 30-inch sanitary sewer pressure line that borders the property. He said any extraordinary sewer costs would be borne by the developer. Mr. Croteau said that the existing drainage swale would probably need to be improved if the property is developed. Responding to questions raised in testimony regarding possible future annexation of the railroad property, Mr. Croteau said that the non-contiguous annexation policy adopted by the council required that such annexations be voluntary. Mr. Croteau said that the council had adopted the policy as a part of its economic development program and that program's identification of the need to provide development-ready industrial land with a full range of urban services. Mr. Croteau noted that the acknowledged Metropolitan Area General Plan had designated the cities'of Eugene and Springfield as the logical providers of services within the urban growth boundary. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney's Office, addressed the written opinion that had been submitted by Ms. Donaldson. He noted that this was an opinion written by State legislative counsel and not by the State Attorney General, as Ms. Donaldson had stated. Mr. Sercombe said he believed that the author was incorrect in his opinion. Mr. Sercombe referred to Chapter 199 of Oregon Revised Statues and e noted that the City of Eugene and the area of the annexation request were located within the jurisdiction of a Boundary Commission and were therefore not governed by the same regulations as jurisdictions not subject to Boundary Commission procedures. Responding to a question from Mr. Obie, Mr. Croteau suggested that the council consider this item further at its November 15, 1982, meeting. Councilor Miller clarified the background of the City's adoption of the non- contiguous annexation policy. She said that the policy applied only to voluntary annexations and only to industrial land and that the matter had been researched by the Industrial Lands Task Force. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to table item II-C-l for further consideration at the November 15, 1982, council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Property located south of West 11th Avenue and west of Willow Creek Road from County AGT, AGT-5, and RA Districts to City M-2 Light Industrial District and I-I Special Light Industrial District and City Industrial Sign District (Pitchford/Stringfield) (AZ 82-2) (map, background information distributed) Recommended approval by Planning Commission September 21, 1982 Vote 5:0 e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 1982 Page 9