Item A: Ordinance Amending Metro Plan and Willakenzie Area Plan (Huntington Crossing)

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

In reference to Mr. Sullivan's concerns regarding Goal 11, Ms. McKinney clarified that no development could occur until annexation.occurred. Mr. Nystrom.added that currently, the property was in the jurisdiction of Lane County and the request would not change that. Speaking to Mr. Sullivan's concerns regarding the condition of the roads, Ms. M~Kinney concurred that the current condition of the roads was not suitable for development. When the applicant made his future development application, another TIA would be required and the developer would also be required to pay for needed improvements identified in the TIA. She did not believe that the redesignation would trigger a . County road problem. Mr. Nystrom added that the redesignation would actually alleviate a County road problem because it was likely any annexation proposal would include the street. Mr. Dignam had a strong personal concern about the adequacy of the supply of industrial land but he acknowledged that the parcel in question might be too small for industrial use.. He asked if the issue of the sufficiency of industrial land should be an issue for him to consider when.deciding how to vote. Mr. Nystrom pointed out that in regard to the supply of industrial lands, the redesignation would not be an issue because the parcel was not counted toward the existing supply of industrial land. For that reason, staff concluded the application technically met the State planning goal. If the pommissions were not comfortable with the further loss of industrial lands, they could consider the policies in the Metro Plan related to economic development and industrial lands and reach a different conclusion than staff.. He suggested that the commissions needed to make a distinction between the policy and the data issues. Mr. Duncan suggested that the commissions could weigh the gain of residential land against the loss of industrial land and make a conclusion on that basis, recognizing there were shortages in all land supply categories. Mr. Duncan noted that a study of the local industrial land supply done by EcoNorthwest had been published that day and accepted by Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County. He asked if that was something the commissions could consider in regard.to the application. Mr. Nystrom said the decision must be based on the adopted Industrial Lands Study. "Mr. Hledik asked if the Chad Drive extension route was firm. Ms. Gardner said that the 30 percent design before the commissions reflected the design that was being advanced by the City. It would not change significantly. Mr. Hledik said he had initially been concerned by the insertion of residential between industrial uses, but suggested that the fact of the connection created a logical break between uses. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki suggested delaying a decision awaiting the EcoNorthwest analysis. Mr. Nystrom said the study would not replace the adopted inventory in the short-term. Mr. Lawless said since the site was not inqluded in either the residential or industrial lands inventories, he saw no problem with the application in that regard. Mr. Nystrom agreed there was not an inventory impact. By way of history, he recalled that when the Willakenzie Area Plan was developed, there were residences on the industrially designated lands that raised a question about the future of those sites; because of the fact of the residences, there was hesitancy to assume those lands would be in industrial use in the future. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki referred to a statement on page 44 of the application that the owner requested off- site infrastructure costs be credited toward the City's systems development charge and asked if that was standard practice. Ms. McKinney did not know, adding that the statement did not actually related to the resdesignation request but to the development proposal. October 24, 2006 Page 6