02/15/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e - III. LANE COUNTY PLAN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ZONING PROPOSALS (memo, ordinance, maps distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Gary Chenkin of the Planning Department presented the staff report, briefly reviewing the February 15, 1984, Planning Department memorandum. He stated that the Lane County Board of Commissioners was taking testimony that day on the issue; therefore, staff must provide any comment to the board that afternoon. He stated that staff plans to submit a brief memorandum to provide direction to the board on the council's opinion on the issues. Councilor Holmer stated that his concern is with the land outside the Metro Plan as addressed in Part II of the memorandum. In regard to the approximately 700 acres of the Industrial Triangle parcel, he said the single ownership property just north of the urban growth boundary has been seen as a potential industrial park site. Mr. Holmer said the owners have their own plans for the property, but these plans do not propose any amendment to the Metro Plan. He questioned whether any other response can be given to the property owners prior to the five-year plan update in 1987. Jim Farah of the Planning Department responded that the Metro Plan is an agreement between the three major metropolitan juris- dictions. He said that staff is recommending a continuing partnership approach. He said staff with concurrence from the other jurisdictions can respond through the major update or in the mid-year update in 1985, clarifying that staff had not anticipated any major update in the mid-year review, but he acknowledged that it is an opportunity. In addition, Mr. Farah stated that the property owner can request that the plan amendment be removed from the process and studied independently. In response to a question, Mr. Farah said he believed that no additional barriers to a plan amendment would be created if the County designates the property for farm use only. He said the urban reserve area in the Willow Creek Basin is the next logical area for large-scale development. Other areas for possible industrial development are the LCC Basin and the Industrial Triangle. He clarified that State law requires that each area within an urban growth boundary be zoned for some type of land use and that the plan amendment process will require a review of the land use. Councilor Hansen said the jurisdictional boundary is apparently on Awbrey Lane under the Metro Plan; therefore, property to the north is beyond the City's overall plan. He questioned if the City Council still has influence with the Board of Commissioners toward its plan for that property. City Attorney Tim Sercombe responded that the ability of the City to comment on Lane County's process is a factor of its proximity; therefore, the City does have some stand- ing to make comment. He stated that any land converted to urban uses must be within an urban growth boundary. In response to another question, Mr. Sercombe stated that annexation differs from comprehensive plan designation. He stated that industrialization of the land would not require formal annexation to the city, but it would require that some comprehensive plan allow industrial use as a designated use. Mr. Gleason added that the City cannot annex or industrialize the property unless it is within the city's urban growth boundary. He said LUBA has already ruled that the land cannot be developed unless it is within the urban growth boundary. In response to a question, Mr. Gleason stated that the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 15, 1984 Page 2