CC Minutes - 02/21/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

restricting the use of a property. It depended on what action the council took. If the council proposed to downzone property, that could trigger a Measure 7 claim. Mr. Fart suggested that the vagueness of Mr. Klein's answer meant the City could expect some sort of challenge if it changed the future use of the land in question. He observed, however, that the urban reserve areas were the first in line to be included in the city and hence, the first to have any zoning changes that might increase the value of the land. Mr. Kelly noted that the staff notes indicated that it was not clear that the land already designated as urban reserves still qualified under State administrative rules. Mr. Croteau agreed. If the community was to do a new study, the areas now designated as urban reserve would likely not meet the new rules and, in the event of a new study of appropriate locations for urban reserves, would not be at the top of the list because of their designation and zoning as resource lands. Mr. Kelly said it appeared that whatever the City did, the State had changed the roles of those properties. Mr. Croteau concurred. Mr. Kelly confirmed the City could expand the urban growth boundary without having urban reserves. He asked if Eugene was freer to expand in the absence of urban reserves. Mr. Croteau said somewhat, but the process for evaluating what was taken into the boundary had to take into account the location of resource lands. If the City decided to establish reserve areas and later expanded the boundary, the State law stipulated that nonresource areas were the first the community must move into. Mr. Kelly said it was significant to him that the planning directors of the three jurisdictions agreed the correct approach was to drop the urban reserve. Mr. Meisner asked if it was easier to bring urban reserves into the boundary as opposed to newly identified land. Mr. Croteau said yes, because the analysis was already done. Mr. Meisner suggested that the City invited speculation by creating urban reserves, because there was the expectation those lands would be brought into the city. He supported the recommendation of the planning directors. Mr. Pap~ asked if the urban reserves helped address the 20-year land supply requirement. Mr. Croteau clarified that the requirement was only triggered if the boundary was expanded. Mr. Pap~ asked if Springfield could have urban reserves if it wished. Mr. Croteau said Springfield could not make a unilateral decision about changes to the Metropolitan Plan without Eugene and Lane County's concurrence. He said that it was possible the two cities could agree one would have urban reserves and one would not. Ms. Nathanson concurred with the recommendation of the planning directors and the Planning Commission. She found the requirement for a 20-year supply to be problematic. She noted her previously discomfort with parcelization and planning for large-scale development rather than small-scale development. She thought Eugene was more supportive of planning for small-scale development, with fine-tuning of how neighborhoods should develop. Ms. Nathanson expressed appreciation for the format of the staff memorandum, saying after reviewing the disadvantages of the reserves and balancing those against her own sentiments and new development patterns, she did not support urban reserves. Mr. Fart agreed with Mr. Kelly that the agreement of the planning directors was significant. He asked if Springfield would support the recommendation. Mr. Croteau said the Springfield council would hold a similar work session. He added that the urban reserves in Springfield were difficult MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 21, 2000 Page 2 Work Session