09/09/1985 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, I C. July 24th -- The Springfield Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment at a public meeting and voted 6 to 1 to recommend approval to the Springfield City Council. -~--4It - D. August 5th -- The Springfield City Council considered their Planning Commission's recommendation in a public hearing. As a result of that hearing, the Planning Commission's recommendation and its own discussion, the Springfield City Counci 1 voted 5 to 0 to support the plan amendment. Correspondence from the Spri ngfi e 1 d Council is contained in Attachment A. E. August 13th -- The Lane County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners considered the proposed plan amendment in joint public hearing on August 6th. As a result of that hearing and their discussions, the board and Planning Commission asked Eugene staff to respond to a seri es of questions. Staff responses are contained in two memoranda enclosed as Attachment B. At a second joint meeting on August 13, the Planning Commission voted 3 to 2 to recommend that Lane County support the plan amendment. At the same meeting the Lane County Board of Commissioners voted 3 to 1 to support the proposed plan amendment. Correspondence from Lane County is contained in Attachment A. Written testimony presented to the board and Planning Commission as part of Lane County1s hearing process is contained in Attachment C. 4It III. ISSUES RAISED BY ELECTED OFFICIALS THROUGH THE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS As a result of the Metropolitan Plan amendment process, elected officials raised two concerns: 1) the council IS deletion of provisions for height limitation in the draft SD, Special Development District; and 2) progress on amendments to Eugenets code governing handling and disposal of toxic wastes. While the council may wish to discuss both issues at this time, neither adoption of the Ri verfront Speci a 1 Area Study nor the related Metropolitan Plan amendment are predicated on resolution of these issues. The height limitation issue will be addressed in development of the SD, Special District, which will be reviewed by the council this fall. Amendments to code provisions governing handling and disposal of toxic wastes will be discussed by the council in early fall. IV. ISSUES RAISED THROUGH PUBLIC TESTIMONY A seri es of issues have been raised a s a resul t of the pub 1 i c hea ri ng process on the Metropolitan Plan amendment. Staff has responded to those issues in the memorandum dated August 12,1985 (Attachment B). In addition, the council has received correspondence from Mr. Al Urquhart, dated August 6, 1985. which raises new questions concerning the compliance of the draft study and proposed Metropolitan Plan amendment with Statewide 4It Goals. This letter has been included along with other correspondence to .~ the Council contained in Attachment A. A separate written response to Mr. Urquhart's letter is contained in Attachment D. 2