05/01/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- e e Council historically has been committed to the existing policies of the Metro Plan and was interested in ensuring that those policies are not changed by the editorial style of the day. Ms. Ehrman said she did not see the changes as an overriding priority for the use of staff resources. Ms. Anderson said the Chamber would provide the specific recommended text changes. Ms. Brody said a determination on review or update status will be made by MPC, and the Council will receive an analysis on those items chosen for review. Mr. Gordon said MPC's bylaws specify a majority decision for consensus, and one of two elected officials from each jurisdiction must agree with the decision. Ms. Wooten asked for direction that Mr. Rutan could take to MPC. Ms. Ehrman said she felt the review process was intended to be used for land use issues that have arisen recently and that require immediate action. She therefore favored the update status. Ms. Wooten said she felt the Metro Plan was a pro-development document, and that editorial changes would not be a worthy use of time. Mr. Holmer said that view was not universal, and that editorial changes might be advantageous in reaching a consensus. Ms. Wooten suggested that Mr. Rutan provide Councilors with copies of any suggested changes that come to MPC. Ms. Anderson introduced the next item, proposed major changes to the Urban Growth Boundary outlined on pages IV-7, 8, and 9. She said the Planning Commission felt that the UGB should be dealt with in its entirety as part of a special study, but not within the next few months. The work program for the study would be done during the review. She added that the commission was more concerned with giving a higher priority to the next item, the Commercial Lands Study. Ms. Ehrman asked how the study was related to the document. Ms. Brody said both items were both targetted as study items, and that the Commercial Lands Study should be begun as soon as the mid-period review is complete. Mr. Thwing said he understood that the study is a working paper for the eventual update, and should be given priority over the UGB changes. Ms. Anderson introduced the next item, the Awbrey-Meadow View Road portion of the industrial triangle, outlined on page IV-10. She said the metro planning team, Springfield, and Lane County had suggested that it be dealt with before the update, but after the review. Eugene and MAPAC had recommended that it be dealt with as part of the review. She added that the Planning Commission had arrived the decision with a split vote. The plan amendment had come before the County Commissioners, who put it off to wait for the review and update of the plan. Ms. Anderson said the people requesting the addition had asked that it be included in the review stage, and they had presented a great deal of background information. She said a majority of Planning Commission members felt that staff could review that information to determine whether the review stage was appropriate. She added that commissioners who had voted against the review felt that it was a more complicated issue because it dealt with the allocation of industrial lands and was therefore more appropriately considered as part of the update. MINUTES--City Council/Planning Commission work session May 1, 1985 Page 4