My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/25/1984 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1984
>
04/25/1984 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2007 6:05:11 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 4:44:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
4/25/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />-- <br /> <br />In response to another question, Mr. Sercombe stated that the City had filed <br />with LUBA a notice of intent to appeal during the previous week. He explained <br />that this letter began the appeal process and preserved the appeal rights, <br />the actual legal work to begin during the next two to four weeks. He stated <br />that the City Attorney's Office was currently engaged in discussions with the <br />Lane County Administrator and counsel in regard to alternatives to litigation. <br /> <br />Councilor Ball commented that his questions with regard to the relations <br />between the neighborhood commercial criteria and the appeal were best left for <br />executive session. Mr. Sercombe stated that discussing the City's chances in <br />the appeal and the specific legal argument were best left for executive <br />session. However, he stated that the General Plan stated that commercial <br />development should not be performed in a strip development manner and that any <br />neighborhood commercial development should be sited in the context of a <br />center. He stated that the purpose of the plan was to make decisions in a <br />comprehensive rather than an ad hoc manner. He added that the manner in which <br />the decision was reached was the significant issue in the appeal. <br /> <br />In response to a question on the time line, Mr. Sercombe stated that some <br />ideas had been proposed to the counsel for Lane County, but that the dis- <br />cussions have centered on other avenues besides litigation for resolving the <br />City's concerns. He expected that the discussion will be completed prior to <br />any further legal action by the County and that the County's position should <br />be known in about 10 to 14 days. He believed that the City and the County may <br />develop a mutually satisfactory solution that will allow Mr. Whitus some <br />development opportunity, that addresses the City's concerns for developing the <br />area in a comprehensive manner, and that allows the County to have some <br />control of the direction taken in the area. <br /> <br />Councilor Holmer stated that he was distressed by the process presented to the <br />council. Stating that the council had received a letter from Mr. Whitus, he <br />stated that the council had not had the opportunity to explore the issue with <br />Mr. Whitus or the County Commissioners. Mr. Gleason commented that the <br />council should meet in executive session if it wished to go any further with <br />the issue. He felt that the appeal process was performed with great delibera- <br />tion, by the Planning Commission, explaining that the council was not directly <br />involved because it was a policy position taken by vote of the council that <br />established the record. He stated that the council must change the General <br />Plan if it wished to change the record, thus directly involving the council in <br />the appeal. Mr. Holmer stated that he was concerned with the County Commis- <br />sion arriving at a different decision while using the same rules as the City <br />on the issue. Mr. Gleason stated that the courts will make the final decision, <br />stating that the policy implication of the appeal was quite clear. He said <br />the details of the implication could be addressed in a confidential memorandum <br />or in executive session. He stressed that staff had been careful in the <br />handling of the issue but had originally felt that the issue would have only <br />minor significance. <br /> <br />In response to a question, Mr. Sercombe stated that the distinction between <br />"urban" and "urbanizable" land was raised early in the issue, but he did not <br />believe that it would be an issue in the appeal. He stated that the Planning <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />April 25, 1984 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.