05/20/1985 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" , ~ - e - ~ I M E M 0 RAN 0 U M May 20, 1985 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Planning Department ADOPTION OF RIVER ROAD-SANTA CLARA URBAN FACILITIES PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT I. BACKGROUND In 1983, Lane County and the cities of Springfield and Eugene began joint development of an Urban Facilities Plan (UFP) for the River Road and Santa Clara areas. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan provided direction to undertake development of the UFP. Work on the UFP has progressed rapidly. The first element, the Sanitary Sewer Element, was adopted in May of 1984. That document provided the basis for a $5.9 million grant application to cons~ruct sewers in the area. The success of that application provided the necessary resources to initiate construction of sanitary sewers in River Road and Santa Clara. That construction project is progressing on schedule and should be substantially completed by the end of this calendar year. On December 10, 1984, the Council conducted its public hearing on the Land Use Element of the UFP. The Council closed the public hearing on th is item and wa s schedu 1 ed to ta ke act i on on Februa ry 27, 1985. The Board of of County Commissioners considered the Land Use Element at their meeting of February 20th. At that time the Commissioners: 1) identified several questions which/they requested that the Citizens Advisory Team and the Policy Committee consider; and 2) directed the County.s staff to prepare an ordi nance, adop~ i ng the Land Use El ement. Because of thi s action, the Council's adoption of the UFP was postponed. This delay provided an opportunity for the Citizens Advisory Team and Policy Committee to discuss questions raised by the Board. At its meeting of April 24th, the Lane County Board of Commissioners passed unanimously Ordinance PA 896 which adopted the Lane Use Element of the UFP. At the same time the Board passed PA 895 which readopted the Sanitary Sewer Element by ordinance instead of resolution. Considering the fact that the version of the Plan finally adcDted by the Board differs from that considered by the Council at the oubl ic hearing of December 10 and because almost five months have elaosed between the Council's hearing and potential adoption, the staff suggests the Council reopen the public hearing on this item. An adopting orcinance ;s provided under separate cover for the Council's consideration.