Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />Ms. Bascom asked about the priority of the industrial triangle in relation to <br />the other studies. Ms. Bishow said the Eugene Planning Commission recommended <br />that the industrial triangle be considered now during the review. The <br />Planning Commission is recommending that the Commercial Lands Study be <br />conducted next, followed by a study of proposed changes to the Urban Growth <br />Boundary. <br /> <br />Mr. Prichard said the majority on the Planning Commission felt that this <br />request differed from the other UGB requests because no large-scale research <br />is available to decide whether enough land has been provided for economic <br />development, and the property owners had not wanted a lengthy wait on their <br />request. <br /> <br />Ms. Wooten reminded members that the City of Eugene had gone to court over <br />this issue, and she asked what factors besides those mentioned by Mr. Prichard <br />have changed to warrant an immediate review. Mr. Gordon said the legal <br />challenge argued by Eugene was in response to the county amending its rural <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />comprehensive plan to designate the area industrial rather than agricultural <br />outside the UGB. The next proposal for an amendment came from the owners and <br />their representatives for an exception to the agricultural goal for industrial <br />designation outside the UGB. Mr. Gordon said this proposal was different <br />because it sought to expand the UGB and designate industrial inside the UGB. <br />He added that more thorough background information probably also had been <br />compiled. Ms. Brody also said the size of the site had changed. This <br />proposal was for approximately 400 acres, while the previous proposal had been <br />for about 1,800 acres. <br /> <br />Ms. Wooten asked for direction. Mr. Gordon explained that the Springfield <br />commission felt there was a greater need to deal with issues inside the UGB <br />than to consider expansion. Ms. Wooten said she agreed with that position. <br /> <br />Mr. Holmer and Mr. Rutan said they supported the Eugene Planning Commission <br />recommendation. Ms. Brody said if the review is decided upon, the governing <br />bodies will make a decision during the review whether to expand the UGB. <br />Ms. Wooten said she felt the proposal should be looked at in the context of <br />other industrial zoned lands prior to the five-year update. No consensus was <br />reached. <br /> <br />Ms. Anderson introduced the next items, nos. 11 and 13 on page IV-2. <br /> <br />She said the amendment to the chapter on Historic Preservation was being <br />proposed because of a report by some University students. She added she was <br />concerned that because the study was fairly detailed and had some <br />site-specific recommendations, it might not allow enough time for the analysis <br />required under LCDC's goals. <br /> <br />Mr. Gordon said he thought a resolution could be found at MPC. He suggested <br />adding some policy to the plan to set up a process for dealing with those <br />sites over a longer period of time, as allowed for in Goal 5. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />MINUTES--City Council/Planning Commission work session <br /> <br />May 1, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br />