Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ 9. Delay of Parking Lot and Sidewalk Requirements <br /> <br />Mr. Smith said that this delay period attempts to address special <br />ci~cumstances such as might arise in changes of occupancy in which the <br />addi~ional costs associated with complying with City standards might prohibit <br />a marginal development. In short, it is another tool which encourages more <br />rapid economic development. <br /> <br />Noting that the current parking lot and sidewalk requirements are considered <br />expensive by industrial property owners, Mr. Holmer questioned why they would <br />be required at all. He expressed an interest in extending this delay policy <br />to similar properties City-wide. <br /> <br />Mr. Rutan noted that the nature of heavy industrial uses is such that it does <br />not require them to immediately come to the same standards. It does provide <br />that they will be up to City standards by the time they are annexed. <br /> <br />Mr. Boles felt that allowing this delay is unwise; the costs of meeting City <br />standards should be borne at the point of development rather than annexation. <br /> <br />Mr. Holmer suggested that before approval, the agreement should be forwarded , <br />to the Planning Commission. If that is not possible, the council should at <br />least provide an opportunity for citizen involvement. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Bennett said that the council should offer its conceptual support of this <br />plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Boles cautioned that because this is the first time that this plan has <br />been subject to public input, the council should not reach closure on this <br />agreement until both the community and the council have had several <br />opportunities for review. <br /> <br />Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett, to accept that <br />concepts in this report and proceed with refinements as <br />needed. <br /> <br />Mr. Boles urged the council not to support this motion. He said that while <br />he supports the concept of having an agreement with the lCCO, he does not <br />support all of the concepts laid forth in this agreement. <br /> <br />Mr. Bennett said that while he too has some specific concerns with this <br />document, the council needs to proceed with this agreement as it was <br />negotiated. <br /> <br />Mr. Holmer suggested that the motion be amended to offer council endorsement <br />for developing an agreement with Highway 99N and ICCO property owners which <br />might contain a tax differential and a fixed time for annexation and sewer <br />connection. He felt that such a motion would be general enough to lead to an <br />agreement but would allow for improvement upon the staff document addressing <br />the problems raised by the council. <br /> <br />~ Ms. Schue emphasized the importance of making a public statement that the <br />City is willing to negotiate an agreement with property owners to reach <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br />Dinner/Work Session <br /> <br />June 11, 1990 <br /> <br />Page 6 <br />