02/20/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Miller suggested a foot bridge be constructed across the crossing. Ms. Wooten said many alternatives have been studied, but they are expensive. The Whiteaker Community Council has requested a crossing guard from the 4-J School District. Ms. Wooten said the council will hold a public hearing March 11,1985. The meeting was briefly recessed at 1 :00 p.m. The councilors reconvened in the McNutt Room and Ms. Wooten called the work session to order. Work Session VI. METROPOLITAN PLAN MID-PERIOD REVIEW e Teresa Bishow of the Planning Department discussed the comments and proposals for the mid-period review of the Metropolitan Area General Plan. In general, the items proposed: l} plan text changes; 2} Plan Diagram changes; 3} auxiliary map changes; and 4} implementation activities and special studies. 37 of the comments relate to specific areas on the Plan Diagram and 28 of those comments apply to properties outside the Eugene or Springfield city limits. Many of the comments apply to properties outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. The staff will submit a summarization and analysis of each comment or proposal to the council. Answering a Question from Mr. Miller about the need to maintain the same land inventories, Ms. Bishow said the staff will analyze reasons for the original allocations and determine whether major changes can be justified. Five or ten acre changes probably will not effect inventories very much and the need for the changes will probably not have to be calculated. Major changes will have to be justified. Answering Questions from Ms. Wooten, Ms. Bishow discussed the mid-period review process. The Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) will decide which of the comments and proposals should be addressed during the mid-period review, which should be studied after the mid-period review, and which should be addressed during the update of the plan. The MPC will then analyze and make recommendations to the planning commissions and elected officials about the issues to be addressed during the mid-period review. Commenting on a suggestion from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Rutan supported having a report from the planning commission before the MPC makes a final recommendation about what is appropriate for the mid-period review. Replying to a question from Mr. Rutan, Ms. Wooten said the council can comment on any of the proposals regardless of the location of the property. Ms. Bishow pointed out the developers of the Awbrey Meadow View industrial site, located outside of the boundary of the Metro Plan, were told by the Lane County Commissioners that the properties should be included in the Metro Plan rather than in the Lane County Rural Plan because of the nature of the proposed development. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 20, 1985 Page 6