09/09/1991 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. There being no additional requests to speak, the public hearing was closed. . . . . Mr. MacDonald asked if the covenant would be legally binding. In response, Bill Gary, City Attorney's Office, said that the covenant would be legally enforceable to the same extent as a contract. The covenant could be over- turned only if it could be proven that the covenant was contrary to public policy as reflected in the Metro Plan, the planning document that governs land use decisions within the county. Mr. Boles asked for additional information about whether the plan designation was in conflict with the Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan. In response, Ms. Childs said that it is stated in the Metro Plan amendment policy that if a conflict exists between the Metro Plan and a refinement plan, the refinement plan would need to be amended. Therefore, while the Metro Plan diagram amendments under consideration are in conflict with the Mid-Springfield Re- finement Plan, the Metro Plan has precedence. Mr. Boles asked whether the Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan should be amended prior to approving these changes. Mr. Johnson said that he and Mr. Farthing have a difference of opinion on whether the .Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan has precedence' over the Metro Pl.an. Resporiding to questions from Ms. Ehrman and Mr. Boles, Mr. Johnson explained that the Mi~-Springfield Refinement Plan, which has been in effect for three or four years, implements a portion of the Metro Plan. The Metro Plan clearly stipulates that when a conflict exists between the Metro Plan and a refinement plan, the Metro Plan has prec- edence. It is his opinion that once the Metro Plan has been changed, the e refinement plan should be changed to bring it into conformance with the Metro Plan. Mr. Farthing disagreed with Mr. Johnson's interpretation. He said that the Metro Plan text talking about siting of medium-density residential land and industrial land in Springfield is inconsistent with the Mid-Springfield Re- finement Plan. He argued that the function of refinement plans is to stipu- late in greater detail the type of land use which should occur in a given area. Proceeding in the manner proposed by Mr. Johnson, neuters the refine- ment planning process. Mr. Gary said that Metro Plan language clearly states that it has control over inconsistencies with the refinement plan. Mr. Farthing's argument rais- es a policy question, but would not prohibit the council from amending the Metro Plan and then subsequently bringing the refinement plan into confor- mance. Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Ms. Childs said that the plan- ning commissions from the three jurisdictions have not taken a position on MPC's recommended modifications. In response to a question from Mr. Boles, Ms. Childs said that the amendments to the Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan reflect both the plan diagram and text amendments needed. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 1991 Page 3