05/16/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e B. Segregation for Assessment of Property Located Northeast on Timber- line Drive, East off Warren Street; Applicant: Breeden Brothers, Inc. (SE 84-1) Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to approve the segregation for assessment as noted. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. III. PUBLIC HEARING: URBAN TRANSITION POLICIES (memo, background information distributed) e City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Jim Farah of the Planning Department presented the staff report. Mr. Farah reviewed the May 1, 1984, Planning Department memorandum to the City Council, stating that the council had adopted a set of urbanization polices for the City of Eugene in January 1984, the policies being an outgrowth of the Metro Plan. He added that in October 1983 representatives from the jurisdictions of Eugene, Spring- field, and Lane County jointly directed their staffs to develop a set of policies which would guide urban transition. He said staff was presenting these policies to the council as recommended by the Planning Commission. He noted that some divergence existed in terms of the policy language, stating that asterisks were used to denote those items for which the Springfield Planning Commission had made recommendations to the Springfield City Council which differed from those being presented to the Eugene City Council by its Planning Commission. Mr. Farah said staff was suggesting that the council hold its public hearing today and then, jointly with the City of Springfield, recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the formation of the Inter- governmental Policy Group. He said staff was also suggesting that the council tentatively adopt the Urban Transition Policies as the basis for consideration by the Intergovernmental Policy Group. Mr. Farah said that the Metropolitan Area Planning Advisory Committee was requesting that the Intergovernmental Policy Group include a MAPAC member as an ex officio member and liaison. He suggested that the editorial changes suggested be presented to the Policy Group for consideration. In response to a question on Item 4, IIPropose Policy Framework,1I Mr. Farah explained that the three staffs had developed a draft and the asterisks on Policy 3 and 6 reflected the differences developed by Eugene and Springfield. In response to a related question on Policy 3, he said there was no actual difference of opinion by the two jurisdictions; he said the differences were in the criteria used for annexation and non-contiguous urbanization and the change in Policy Statement 3 A. He stated that staff was recommending the use of "non-contiguous developed urban landll as more appropriate language. The public hearing was opened. There being no testimony presented, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to adopt the policy and process reconunendations as outlined by staff. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 16, 1984 Page 4