11/20/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ri / M E M 0 RAN 0 U M e November 14, 1985 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJ: METROPOLITAN PLAN MID-PERIOD REVIEW On October I, 1985, MPC authorized the publication and public release of MPC's Pl an Revi ew Report, Volumes 1 and 2. Both documents are enclosed. Volume 1 contains detailed staff analysis and findings for each of the individual amenament requests submitted during the winter of 1985. Volume 2 contains Plan amendments recommended by MPC, an analysis of the cumulative impact of these changes, and a set or findings, based on Statewide goals, supporting recommended amendments. Volume 2 also includes an overview or two unresolved MPC issues. The three planning commissions conducted public hearings on MPC's Plan Review Report October 28 and November 5. Approximately 130 citizens attended the hearings. Those test ifyi ng addressed a variety of amendments. The Eugene Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a special meeting on November 19 and to take fi na 1 action on all the Mid-Period Review items on November 25. The Lane County and Springfield Planning Commissions have t.aken action on e these items. A joint elected officials public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. in the Springfield City Council Chamber on December 3. The recommendations from the three planning commissions will be rorwa rded to you pri or to the hearing. Staff will be at your November 20 meeting to briefly review the major issues and answer any questions you may have about the upcoming public hearing. Major Items Recommended by MPC 1. Revisions to the Metro Plan amendment process. The new process clarifies and streamlines the Plan amendment process. Citizens will have increased access to the amendment process by having regular times twice annually and during Plan updates wnen proposals may be submitted. The governing bodies can still initiate Plan amendments at any time. Joint hearings are recommended to aid in streamlining the process. MAPAC retains its existing citizen advisory role in reviewing amendments. MPC ta ke s on a formai rO-1 e as the local appeals body on scheduling issues and an official role as a body to resolve local government differences. The L-COG Board is eliminated as an unnecessary step in the amendment process. Refer to pages II-43 through 11-45 and II-50 of MPC's Report, Volume 2. 2. A proposed process to follow when new Goal 5 resources are e identified in the metropolitan area. These include natural, cultural, and hist.oric resources. Refer to page II-29 of MPC.s Report, Voiume 2, proposed Policy 36. Note: the Eugene Planning Commission is recommending a cnange to proposed Policy 36.