02/28/1972 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I - 1990 General Plan - Planning COmnUssion January 26, 1972 - The Planning COnmUssion after joint hearings with the Springfield and Lane County Planning COnmUssions recom- mended the City Council's adoption of the "Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area 1990 General Plan, 1971 Revised Preliminary, 1st Revised Edition," subject to the inclusion of: 1. The Errata Sheet to the "1971 Revised Preliminary, 1st Revised Edition" for omissions on pages 17, 44, and- 47 of the Plan; 2. The Metropolitan Area Plan Diagram - 1990; 3. The General Plan Co-ordinating committee's recommendation for an addition to paragraph 6, page 29 of the Plan as follows: ' .e: ~~ The 1990 Plan Diagram designation of Public Facilities - ;'Universities and Colleges" in this area refers only to the Community College. Any other development in the area would be in conflict with this Plan. Sub- sequent re-evaluations of the Plan should reconsider the appropriateness of this "rural" area designation for urban development based upon (1) the metropolitan area's need for additional or alternative growth area, (2) the physical, social, and economic relationship with the entire metropolitan area, and (3) the availability of a general purpose governmental entity with the financial and operati'onal mechanism to supply a "minimum level of urban services" - in essence the criteria for adjusting the "Urban Services Area. " 4. The addition of public hearing procedures in the Citizens' Participation Section of the Plan. The Manager said if it is agreeable at this time mechanics of consideration of the reco~ mendation could be discussed and whether a study session for complete review prior to public hearings would be desirable. Contact has been made with the County and, Spring- field and both indicate they favor joint hearings. If joint hearings are held and amend- ments are suggested, it would appear to be desi!able for joint co-ordinating committee of the three bodies to consider the amendments so that, if adopted, they would be acceptable to all three agencies. This would enhance the possibili ty of identical 1990 Plans. This process was fQllowed by the Planning Commissions in their deliberations; there was joint consultation by committees on amendments, so that all three Commissions were able to agree on one plan to go to the governing bodies. ..: -- Mrs. Beal suggested a tour of the actual urban service boundaries as proposed in the Plan. Mr. Teague concurred. Mr. Mohr asked if the recommendation for adoption came from the three Planning Co~ missions or from just the Eugene Commission. Manager replied it was from all three Comrrmssions. A quorum of the individual commissions was at the joint hearings, and this recommendation comes as a result of joint agreement. "Mr. Mohr asked, if an amendment to the definition "Public Facilities" is desired, whether it should be done at this time or await the public hearings. He said if an amendment is desired, it would not be objectionable for people finding issue to identify it at this time. He said he does not take the position that an amendment be adopted or unilateral posi tion taken until after complete testinony, but he would like to hear what people have to say. Manager said the possibility of reaching an identical document for Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County could probably best be attained by presentation of specific items at joint sessions; also joint sessions would preclude duplication of information. Councilman Mohr said the Council shoul'd hear comments in order to have a sense of the types of issues to expect at the public hearings, and be sensi ti ve to certain areas wi thout the Council's taking any particular posi tion or action at this time. Mr.Hersh- ner asked if camment to be made would be on merits of the Plan or upon the procedure for adoption. Mr. Mohr said it would be on the merits of Item 3 of the Planning Com- mission recommendation with regard to designation of public facilities so i that when the Plan goes to public hearing the Council would be apprised of points of fact that may be brought out at the hearing. He introduced Paul Hoffman, Oregan Research Insti- tute, who presented Council members with copies of excerpts from the 1990 Plan listing findings, goals, objecti ves and reaommendations wi th regard to general land use; let~ ter to the Lane County Planning Commissi,on from O~gon Research Institute with regard to the Institute's request f~ rezoning of property in the Lane Community College area; and presentation made- by Dr. Hoffman at the Januar:i 13, 1972 joint Commissions' helU:- ing on the 1990 plan. I I ~ I I I Mr. Hoffman sciid the Lane Community College Basin is particularly germane to the goals' as listed in the PLan of encouraging orderly conversion of land for urban uses and at the same time ptotecting those lands, best sui ted for non-urban type land uses. Be discussed the O~ Research Institute's acquisition of property in the Basin and its status as a non"p~ofit organization in r:elation to the position taken by some that the Institute's pu:tpose in locating in the Basin is for potential benefit which could be derived frOm development in that area. He denied the Institute's having any interest in the property other than as a site for the Institute. He also said that after ac- quisition of the property in the- Basin ror the Institute their attention was draTlfn to the 1990 Plan, and at that time it was ,rel tits goals were compatible wi th their pur- poses. But with the proposed amendment to allow no ~ther universities or colleges I. 46 2/28/72 - }JJ