HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/11/1985 Meeting
I (
M I NUT E S
- Eugene City Council Work Session
McNutt Room--City Hall
September 11,1985
11:30 a.m.
PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten, Richard Hansen, Emily Schue, Freeman Holmer, Ruth
Bascom, Debra Ehrman, Roger Rutan, Jeff Miller.
The work session was called to order by His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie.
I. METROPOLITAN POLICY COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS
Replying to a question from Mayor Obie, City Attorney Tim Sercombe said public
notice was given of the council's discussion of the Metro Plan amendments on
Monday, September 9, 1985. At that meeting, it was announced that the council
would continue the discussion today. The required notice must be reasonably
calculated to give notice to interested persons. He thought sufficient
notification had been given.
Councilors Hansen and Schue said they asked for instruction from the council
e before the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) meeting, but the council would
not have to vote formally.
Planning Director Susan Brody distributed to the council a memo dated
September 11,1985, concerning an alternative growth study. She said the
study would determine which growth areas are appropriate for the metropolitan
area expansi on. She discussed reasons for completing the study, the legal
issues, implications for marketing the Industrial Tract, and the cost and work
program implications of accelerating the alternative growth area study. She
emphasized the importance of avoiding court action.
Mr. Sercombe said the law requires a high standard of proof when so much land
is included in the Urban Growth Boundary. The State law protects agricultural
land and only permits its inclusion in the Urban Growth Boundary when there is
no alternative. He said more work is needed to prepare the amendment
request. Data will have to be developed to prepare findings because courts
scrutinize privately produced data. If the data is refined, the applicant's
proposal is analyzed, and supplementary data is generated, the proposed
amendment will be significantly more defensible.
Mr. Holmer wondered if the City is legally vulnerable if it does not approve
the amendment request. Mr. Sercombe responded that the standard for denial is
less exact than the standard for approval.
It
MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session September 11, 1985 Page 1
Mr. Hansen asked when the proposal was submitted and whether the staff had
- communicated its weaknesses to the applicant. Ms. Brody said the applicant
received a copy of the staff analysis which indicated legal difficulties with
the proposal. Mr. Sercombe said his comments were incorporated into the staff
analysis. He said the legal issues have been discussed for five years.
Responding to questions from Mr. Rutan, Ms. Brody said the amendment request
is part of the Metro Plan Mid-Period Review. She discussed the process.
Mr. Sercombe said the legal issues are: Is there an alternative to the
proposal? Is the applicant's review of the alternatives sufficient?
Mr. Miller noted that the council had not been asked to judge the proposal.
Jim Hale, chair of the Metropolitan Area Policy Advisory Committee (MAPAC),
said MAPAC members indicated the situation has changed since the application
was considered previously. Now, only heavy industrial uses are proposed, the
applicant has agreed to annexation to Eugene, and there has been a big invest-
ment in sewers in the area. However, MAPAC members were concerned about an
appropriate designation for property on Awbrey Lane that is not included in
the proposal, a response from property owners whose land was not included, how
the proposal related to other industrial designations, a mechanism for pre-
serving the area for industries that need large parcels, and an appropriate
designation for the sludge site in the southeast corner of the property. He
suggested the council and the MPC defer a decision until MAPAC has made a
recommendation.
e Several members commented on the issue. Ms. Wooten said the MPC should make a
decision soon. She favored the staff recommendation to postpone consideration
of the proposal until the alternative growth study is completed. She did not
think the study was being proposed to support any specific decision. She did
not favor accelerating the study.
Mr. Miller would like to maintain the integrity of the planning process and he
would like to communicate that the council wants to entice new industry. He
said accelerating the alternative growth areas study would communicate both
points.
Responding to a question from Mr. Holmer, Ms. Brody discussed a commercial
lands study.
Ms. Ehrman did not think moving the alternative growth study up six months is
worth $50,000. The Planning Commission gave the commercial lands study a high
priority and she would like to back-up the commission.
Mr. Rutan said the City owes a decision to the community and the landowner.
He would like to accelerate the alternative growth area study.
-
MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session September 11, 1985 Page 2
Mr. Hansen said the applicant has tried to keep the integrity of the planning
e process. Mr. Hansen also favored making a decision about the amendment
request now. The applicant should receive an answer, he said. He thought
some councilors made a decision against the proposal some time ago. If the
land remains vacant, there is no harm. If the land is used industrially, it
will be a fine opportunity.
Ms. Bascom favored accelerating the alternative growth area study so that some
new information might be obtained. She hoped a resolution to the problem can
be found.
Ms. Schue said the council has said "No" to other applicants. She did not
think the owner of the Awbrey/Meadowview site deserved special consideration.
She does not want to see the City in court about an economic development
issue. She would like to follow the appropriate processes and be sure to have
a good case. She would be satisfied to consider the proposal during the Metro
Plan Update, but she will not oppose an acceleration of the alternative growth
areas study.
Mayor Obie said two councilors and he would like the MPC to approve the amend-
ment request, two councilors opposed the proposal, and three councilors would
like to start the alternative growth study in January 1986.
Ms. Schue said the council IS direction seemed to be that the MPC should not
approve the amendment request now.
e Mr. Hansen said most of the councilors did not want the MPC to approve the
amendment request now. He will vote that way, but he will lobby other members
to approve the amendment request.
Mr. Miller emphasized he has not made a decision about the proposal. He would
like unbiased information about it.
Mayor Obie noted that the council voted previously to include the proposal in
the Metro Plan Mid-Period Review. He would like to accelerate the alternative
growth area study. In his opinion, it has a higher priority than the commer-
cial lands study.
Ms. Ehrman suggested the Planning Commission be asked for a recommendation
about priorities of needed studies.
B. Request to Change the Metro Plan Diagram Designation on the North
Side of West 11th Avenue from Fred Meyer to the Amazon Channel
Teresa Bishow of the Planning Department reviewed the request to change the
Metro Plan diagram on the north side of West 11th Avenue. She said the staff
recommended denial of the request because the council has indicated in the
past that commercial use on the north side of 11th Avenue should stop at the
Fred Meyer development. She said the applicant submitted a revised request
which excludes some of the vacant property.
-
MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session September 11, 1985 Page 3
Mr. Hansen said the C-4 zoning district permits industrial uses as well as
- commercial uses. However, the council had indicated it would not permit
commerical zoning west of the Fred Meyer property.
All the councilors indicated they wanted to maintain the council's position.
The work session was recessed at 12:15 p.m. Councilors met immediately in the
Council Chamber.
(Recorded.by Betty Lou Rarick)
BLR:db/1853C
e
-
MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session September 11, 1985 Page 4