04/25/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- Councilor Ball stated that he felt substantial progress was made at the April 23 meeting with DEQ in regards to the scheduling of the sewer implementation. He felt that both sides were working toward a resolution of the issue. Mr. Gleason stated that staff was keeping in mind the request by council to balance for the existing citizens of the metropolitan area to ensure that any solution would not place a burden on one particular group to subsidizing another. VI. INTENTION TO APPEAL COUNTY LAND USE DECISION (memo and background information distributed) e City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. He recommended that the council consider entering into executive session to discuss the details of the item. He stated that the refinement plan for the River Road/Santa Clara area currently underway dealt with several land use issues, including the strip commercial problems in the area and the desire to create commercial nodes. Mr. Gleason stated that the Lane County Planning Commission, the respective staffs, and the Citizen Advisory Team had each recommended that any decision on the appeal be delayed until the refinement process was completed. Based on the decision by the Lane County Board of Commissioners to grant the rezoning, he stated that the City had filed an appeal of the action with the Land Use Board of Appeals as being inconsistent with the General Plan and ordinances adopted by the City Council. Mr. Gleason stated that he has discussed the issue with Lane County staff, including the option of condition- ally zoning the land in question. He stated that the technical application of the appeal has to be reviewed by the City Attorney. He stated that Jim Farah of the Planning Department was present to answer any questions of council on the issue. City Attorney Tim Sercombe stated that he could answer questions on the general policies involved but that any detailed discussion of the issue should be done in executive session. In response to a question, Mr. Sercombe stated that the Hearings Official had decided against the rezoning in both situations and that the City had appeared before the Lane County Board of Commissioners in support of that decision. Mr. Sercombe then reviewed the process and basis of the appeal as outlined in the April 20, 1984, Planning Department and City Attorney's Office memorandum to the City Council and the Planning Commission. In response to another question, Mr. Farah stated that the application for rezoning was originally made on March 21, 1983. Councilor Hansen asked if the county had agreed not to perform any zone changes until the City had prepared a refinement plan for the area. Mr. Sercombe stated that the Planning Department position was that the General Plan required that commercial activities be done in centers rather than strip development and that the City plan off-street commercial nodes. He explained that those siting decisions could be performed according to the plan either by siting the commercial centers through the refinement process or through incremental decisions. He said the Planning Department believed that any siting should occur through a refinement plan process and that standards be adopted in advance for any incremental siting. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 1984 Page 6