04/28/1986 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e Ms. Decker reviewed council actions last fall and said the amendment had been the subject of an appeal to the Land Use Board. She said the Land Use Board of Appeals recently had issued a ruling supporting the City's position in seven out of eight areas. On the eighth issue, the board had remanded the study and amendment to the City and had asked for adoption of supplemental findings. She said the board also had requested clarification of the Metro- politan Plan Diagram's designation for park and open space and of the lack of the site's inclusion in the Goal 5 inventory for natural resources or open space. Ms. Decker said the findings distributed provided a history of the development of the Goal 5 inventory. She said one paper used for development had estab- lished that no additional park lands were needed, and the Parks Master Plan subsequently had examined that issue further, including the Riverfront site as open space owned by the University. Ms. Decker said the Parks Master Plan had indicated a need for an additional 644 acres of land that should be acquired for open space, but that the Riverfront property had not been acquired then because of the availability of substantial open space resources near the existing site. Ms. Decker said that findings also described the Metro Plan Diagram designa- tion of the area for open space within the Wi11amette Greenway. City Attorney Tim Sercombe said the issue before the council was whether the property should be classified as needed open space under the comprehensive plan. If the council decided it should be, he said additional findings would have to be adopted; if it decided that property was not needed for open space, the findings could be adopted as they were. Mayor Obie opened the public hearing. Alvin Urquhart, 1820 Olive, confirmed that councilors had received his memo containing a point-by-point analysis. He said he supported the research facility and he also supported open space in the community. He said he thought an open-space designation for the area was desirable, and he said the City hearings officer had issued that finding in the past. He said the record contained evidence to support that designation, and he submitted copies of a petition circulated among members of several departments at the University of Oregon, including Geography, Anthropology, Architecture, Landscape Architec- ture, the Erb Memorial Union, Physical Education, and the Business Office. Mr. Urquhart urged the council to look beyond staff recommendations, which he said he thought were incorrect in this case. He said one reference was made to the Metro Plan Update, Natural Assets and Constraints, but that document made no mention of needed or desirable open space or of inventory. He said the document also failed to include scenic vistas or any regional plan for park1ands in the open space survey, although the report called a regional park plan "necessary to determine which portions of the regional park should serve as wildlife areas and open space." Mr. Urquhart said another reference was made to an inventory of existing pub- lic facilities and further plans, which included a sub-category for Parks and ~ Recreation Facilities. He said the document was not an open space survey, but MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 1986 Page 5