|
<br />"...
<br />
<br />lfb
<br />
<br />~~ -~------- -
<br />, '
<br />
<br />I
<br />I!
<br />!!
<br />I:
<br />r
<br />j:
<br />I,
<br />"
<br />i,
<br />I,
<br />
<br />I'
<br />i
<br />l,
<br />
<br />i:
<br />Ii
<br />[:
<br />I
<br />r
<br />
<br />I
<br />i
<br />"
<br />i'
<br />I'
<br />t;
<br />i.
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />II
<br />
<br />:'
<br />I ~
<br />I:
<br />I
<br />
<br />I,
<br />Ii
<br />I,;
<br />I
<br />;;
<br />I,
<br />I:
<br />it
<br />I
<br />I:
<br />,
<br />
<br />\:
<br />
<br />I'
<br />I
<br />I:
<br />I:
<br />I'
<br />I'
<br />I:
<br />I:
<br />I
<br />I.
<br />1
<br />I,
<br />I:
<br />!
<br />
<br />I,
<br />I:
<br />I'
<br />I'
<br />'I
<br />
<br />I,
<br />I:
<br />ii
<br />Ii
<br />!:
<br />I:
<br />I,
<br />I:
<br />Ii
<br />\i
<br />Ii
<br />Ii
<br />I;
<br />II
<br />f
<br />"
<br />!:
<br />:1
<br />I:
<br />I'
<br />t'
<br />i ~
<br />I:
<br />iI
<br />\:
<br />i:
<br />I!
<br />i:
<br />I!
<br />ii
<br />Ii
<br />\t,
<br />I
<br />
<br />~:
<br />
<br />I - 1990 General Plan - Planning COmnUssion January 26, 1972 - The Planning COmnUssion
<br />aft~r joint hearings with the Springfield and Lane County PlanningCoRmrissions recom-
<br />mended the Ci ty Council's adoption of the "Eugene-Springfield Metropoli tan Area 1990
<br />General Plan, 1971 Revised Preliminary, 1st Revised Edition," subject to the inclusion
<br />of: 1. The Errata Sheet to the "1971 Revised Preliminary, 1st Revised Edition"
<br />for omissions on pages 17, '44, and 47 of the Plan;'
<br />2. The Metropolitan Area Plan Diagram - 1990;
<br />3. The General Plan Co-ordinating COmnUttee's recommendation for an addition
<br />to paragraph 6, page 29 of the Plan as follows:
<br />
<br />The 1990 Plan Diagram designation of Public Fai:ilities - "Universities
<br />and Colleges" in this area refers only to the Community College. Any
<br />other development in the area would be in conflict with this Plan: Sub-
<br />sequent re-evaluations of the Plan should reconsider the appropriateness
<br />of this "rural" area designation for urban development based upon (1) the
<br />metropoli~an area's need for additionai or alternative growth area, (2) the
<br />physical, so'cial-, and -ecolJOmic; relationship wi th the entire metropolitan
<br />area, and (3) the availability of, a general purpose governmental entity
<br />wi th the financial and operata.1onal mechanism to supply a "minimum level of
<br />urban services" - in essence the criteria for adjusting the "Urban Services
<br />Area."
<br />
<br />4. The addition of public hearing procedures in the Citizens' Participation
<br />Section of the Plan.
<br />
<br />The Manager said if it is agreeable at this time mechanics of consideration of the recom-
<br />mendation could be discussed and whether a study session for complete review prior
<br />to public hearings would be desirable. Contact has been made with the County and Spring-
<br />field and both indicate they favor joint hearings. If joint hearings are held and amend-
<br />ments are suggested, it would appear to be desirable for joint co-ordinating comnU ttee
<br />of the three bodies to consider the amendments so that, if adopted, they would be acceptable
<br />to all three agencies. This would enhance the possibility of identical 1990 Plans. This
<br />process was fmllowed by the Planning COmrrUssions 'in their deliberations; there was joint
<br />consultation by cOmnUttees on amendments, so that all three Co~ssions were able to agree
<br />on one plan to go to the governing bodies.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal suggested a tour of the actual urban service boundaries as proposed in the
<br />Plan. Mr. Teague concurred.
<br />
<br />Mr. Mohr asked if the recommendation for adoption came from the three Planning Com-
<br />missions or from just the Eugene COmnUssion. Manager replied it was from all three
<br />CommiJssions. A quorum of the individual commissions was at the joint hearings, and
<br />this recommendation comes as a result of joint agreement.
<br />
<br />Mr. Mohr asked, if an amendment to the definition "Public Facili ties" is desired,
<br />whether it should be done at this time or await the public hearings. He said if an
<br />amendment is desired, it would not be objectionable for people finding issue to
<br />identify it at this time. He said he does not take the position that an amendment
<br />be adopted or unilateral position taken until after complete testimony, but he would
<br />like to hear what people have to say. Manager said the possibili ty of reaching an
<br />identical document for Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County could probably best be
<br />attained by presentation of specific items at joint sessions; also joint sessions
<br />would preclude duplication of information.
<br />
<br />Councilman Mohr said the Council should hear comments in order to have a sense of the
<br />types of issues to expect at the public hearings, and be sensi ti ve to certain areas
<br />without the Council's taking any particular position or action at this time. Mr. Hersh-
<br />ner asked if comment to be made would be on merits of the Plan or upon the procedure
<br />for adoption. Mr. Mohr said it would be on the merits of Item 3 of thePJanning Com-
<br />mission recommendation with regard to designation of public facilities so that when
<br />the Plan goes to public hearing the Council would be apprised of points of fact that
<br />may be brought out at the hearing. He introduced Paul Hoffman, Oregon Research Insti-
<br />tute, who presented Council members with copies of excerpts from the 1990 Plan listing
<br />findings, goals, objectives and recommendations wi th regard to general land use; let-
<br />ter to the Lane County Planning Commission from Oregon Research Institute with regard
<br />to the Institute's request fv~ rezoning of property in the Lane Community College area;
<br />and presentation made by Dr. Hoffman at the January 13, 1972 joint COnmUssions' hear-
<br />ing on the 1990 plan.
<br />
<br />Mr. Hoffman said the Lane Community College Basin is particularly germane to the goals
<br />as listed in the Plan of encouraging orderly conversion of land for urban uses and
<br />at the same time protecting those lands best sui ted for non-urban type land uses. He
<br />discussed the Oregon Research Institute's acquisition of property in the Basin and its
<br />status as' a non-profit organization in ,relation to the position taken by some that the
<br />Institute's purpose in locating in the Basin is for potential benefit which could be
<br />derived from development in that area. 'He denied the Institute's' having any interest
<br />in the property other than as a site for the Institute. He also said that after ac-
<br />quisition of the property in the Basin for the Institute their attention was drawn to
<br />the 1990 Plan, and at that time it was felt its goals were compatible with their pur-
<br />poses. But with the proposed amendment to allow no other universities or colleges
<br />
<br />2/28/72 - lQ
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />!I
<br />11
<br />
<br />'I
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />il
<br />,
<br />d
<br />1:
<br />Ii
<br />il
<br />i!
<br />"
<br />II
<br />
<br />,I
<br />if
<br />:1
<br />11
<br />,I
<br />'I
<br />"
<br />I'
<br />,I
<br />~ :
<br />II
<br />"
<br />II
<br />!;
<br />I;
<br />j:
<br />,j
<br />I;
<br />"
<br />J!
<br />"
<br />
<br />i:
<br />! ~
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />I,
<br />II
<br />
<br />II
<br />II
<br />"
<br />i;
<br />'I
<br />I
<br />;!
<br />:j
<br />
<br /><I
<br />"
<br />I
<br />II
<br />:1
<br />:i
<br />:1
<br />:1
<br />:1
<br />II
<br />I'
<br />:1
<br />if
<br />:1
<br />:1
<br />;1
<br />:1
<br />II
<br />I,
<br />,I
<br />'I
<br />:;
<br />ii
<br />,I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />~ I
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />"
<br />Ii
<br />'I
<br />II
<br />:1
<br />;1
<br />!I
<br />!I
<br />II
<br />~ I
<br />
<br />!I
<br />
<br />,I
<br />Ii
<br />:.1
<br />:1
<br />:1
<br />,I
<br />'I
<br />P
<br />:1
<br />I
<br />:1
<br />"
<br />
<br />)j
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
|