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 />Department had abandoned the assertion that the property in question was not <br />"urban." In tenns of definitions, he stated that both tenns as defined in the <br />LCDC goals were used in the Metro Plan. He said the issue of delaying the <br />development of the land awaiting urban service provisions was raised because <br />the land could be classified as "urbanizable" land. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />Councilor Schue stated that she was comfortable with the general policy of the <br />City in following the General Plan. She stated that she was not personally <br />interested in reviewing the details of this particular application but would <br />concur if the other councilors chose to do so. She stated that the issue was <br />broad enough to be left to staff for interpretation. <br /> <br />Councilor Hansen commented that the City must continue with the process now <br />that the notice of intent to appeal had been filed. He asked if it would be <br />appropriate for the council to meet in executive session after the City <br />Attorney has reached some conclusion or prior to the start of any legal action. <br />Mr. Sercombe stated this was a solution but depended on the degree of council <br />curiosity. He said that his preference would be to advise the council of the <br />status of the appeal as events occurred and that any issue resolution agreed <br />upon short of action by LUBA could be communicated by confidential memorandum <br />or executive session. Mr. Hansen stated that he was concerned with proceeding <br />with the appeal, stating that he had not made a decision on the issue. <br /> <br />Councilor Nichols stated that she would be comfortable with receiving a report <br />on any steps taken by staff in negotiations. She asked if the timeline for <br />the appeal to LUBA could be del~ed. Mr. Sercombe stated that some time <br />limitations were imposed on LUBA for deciding cases. He reviewed these <br />limitations, stating that the only flexibility allowed was in filing the <br />record. <br /> <br />Mayor Keller said he understood council to state that moving into executive <br />session was inappropriate at this time. He stated that the council would <br />expect to receive a report from the City Attorney's Office within the next <br />two week s . <br /> <br />Councilor Holmer stated that he supported Mr. Hansen's position, adding that <br />his concern was in dealing with another government which had already-made the <br />decision. He stressed that the council should be careful in taking on the <br />county in an adversarial role. <br /> <br />In response to a question, Mr. Sercombe stated that he could provide some <br />infonnation on the issue to individual councilors but that any discussion <br />involving deliberation toward a decision would be a violation of the Open <br />Meetings Law. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />April 25, 1984 <br /> <br />Page 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.