06/25/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-- --- Mr. Obie asked how the update treats this area. Mr, Chenkin responded that e it is somewhat vague--they have to consider the request on what is officially approved at the time that they make the decision. Mr. Obie asked what the designation on the update is now. Mr. Chenkin responded that it is outside the urban growth boundary and is designated agricultural but that plan is not a valid one on which to base a decision. Ms. Miller noted she felt it was part of the Airport compromise which has since fallen apart so it is wide open, Mr. Obie asked if legal fees would be involved and if so, to what degree. Mr. Chenkin responded there would most likely be legal costs. Mr. Long added that the extent of legal fees would depend upon the length of time involved and the County's response. It would probably cost more than $3,000. Mr, Haws asked if there was any chance to recoup legal fees. Mr. Long responded that there was not. Mr. Haws stated that the City should pursue this regardless of the cost. Ms. Miller noted support for the appeal and that it is not just one issue that is involved, as it affects the integrity of the planning process. The County feels industry should establish itself anywhere and be allowed whatever services they want. Ms. Schue felt it is not possible to wait for this to be resolved in the update. She would support the appeal, Mr. Obie asked whether non-legal staff could handle the appeal process. Mr. Chenkin responded he would feel uncomfortable with Planning staff making a presentation since there are many legal implications. If the Metropolitan Plan is adopted then staff could request that the case be dropped. Mr. Delay stated support for the appeal as there is a need for clear language and understanding. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to appeal a zone change (Stringfield) from AGT-5 to M-2 as approved by the Lane e County Commission to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 3. Possible Revision to the Definition "Urban Lands" (memo distributed) Mr. Chenkin stated that the Department of Land Conservation and Development will be holding ten public hearings throughout the state to consider views on a possible amendment to the goals or the definition of "urban land" as used in the goal s. It would provide that land inside city boundaries is either urban or urbanizable. The entire question was generated by the Cone! Breeden matter, The Eugene hearing will be in Harris Hall at 1 p.m. on Monday, June 30. The Planning Department feels that the definition should state that "all land within lawfully established cities is considered urban, unless it is otherwise designated in the city's comprehensive plan as either urbanizable land (inside the urban growth boundary) or rural land (outside the urban growth boundary)." Several points support this conclusion, one of which is that cities are the traditional providers of urban services since properties in cities can be taxed to support those services and should expect service availability and a right to develop at urban densities. The League of Oregon Cities has been in contact with staff and stated that other cities feel there is a need for clarification al so. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the presentation would be done by the Planning Department, e Mr. Chenkin responded that he would do it. Mr, Lieuallen then had asked for 6/25/80--3