01/08/1986 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e Answering questions from Ms. Schue and Mr. Hansen, Ms. Brody said the staff will prepare new findings without spending a great deal of money. The new findings will be based on existing information. The OLCO wants a finding about the need for additional residential land within the Urban Growth Boun- dary, and it will be hard to demonstrate such a need now. She said the OLeo can appeal the local decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals if the OLCO staff thinks the findings are not sufficient. Several councilors commented on the amendment. Ms. Ehrman said she will vote against the motion. She said the testimony did not indicate things have changed and she does not think the property is unique. She noted that the Lane County Planning Commission did not recommend approval of the amendment. Mr. Miller summarized the dilemma by saying the residential supply of land is ample and, consequently, it will be difficult to justify an extension of the urban growth boundary for resi- dentially designated land. He suggested the issue involved compact urban growth. He pointed out that low density residen- tial development abuts the property. Mr. Hansen said most of the local jurisdictions approved the amendment. He thought the decision should reflect local opinion. Ms. Wooten said she would oppose the motion. She said the issue is "need." She said the proposal does not support compact urban growth because the exist- ing inventory of residential land is sufficient. In her opinion, the urban growth boundary should not be expanded until additional land is needed. Ms. Bascom said urban services can be provided to this site sequentially and the provision of urban services in a sequential manner is one of the purposes of the urban growth boundary. She said the proposal provides an alternative site for housing. Answering questions from Mr. Miller, Ms. Brody said a pump station may not be located on the site. She said the urban growth boundary has not been expanded since the Metro Plan was acknowledged in 1982. This amendment could set a precedent. Roll call vote; the motion failed because of a tie. Mr. Holmer, Ms. Bascom, Mr. Hansen, and Mr. Rutan voted' aye. Ms. Wooten, Ms. Schue, Mr. Miller, and Ms. Ehrman voted nay. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to deny amendment B-20 due to lack of applicable LCOC goals analyses. Roll call vote; the motion failed because of a tie vote. Ms. Wooten, Ms. Schue, Mr. Miller, and Ms. Ehrman voted aye. Mr. Holmer, Ms. Bascom, Mr. Hansen, and Mr. Rutan voted nay. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to direct the MPC to consider the matter again. Ms. Wooten suggested the council consider the issue at another meeting before ~ remanding it to the MPC. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 8, 1986 Page 12