01/29/1992 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e C. Staff Presentation Mr. Leahy summarized the status of the record. He said that at the conclu- sion of the October 2, 1991, Joint Planning Commission meeting, it was decid- ed that all three governing bodies would allow public testimony that is based on evidence in the record. New testimony may be offered at this hearing based on new recommendations of the planning commission to the extent that those recommendations are in the record. He said that there are no major deviations from the planning commissions in the record to date. Susie Smith, Springfield Development Services staff, presented the staff report. She said that most of the controversy centers around relatively few issues. She said that this plan is the sixth in a series of Springfield- initiated refinement plans, and is a refinement to the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. She noted that half of the Gateway area lies in urbanizable land and has rural qualities, natural assets, river frontage, and land that is currently in agricultural use. That area is designated in the Metro Plan for future urban development. The Gateway Refinement Plan merely included that Metro Plan designation. Ms. Smith said that the City of Springfield began working on the plan in 1989. In 1990, the City appointed a 17-member plan advisory committee (PAC). Thirteen of the members were residents within or adjacent to the refinement plan area. Four ex officio members were appointed--two Springfield Planning Commissioners, a Springfield City Councilor, and a Lane County Board of Com- missioners representative. In April 1991, a set of draft plan recommenda- tions was released to the planning commissions. Other efforts were made to involve the public and residents of the area, including contacting interested parties, conducting workshops, and providing information to the public. In October 1991, the Springfield Planning Commission held a public hearing. After reviewing the plan, the Springfield Planning Commission provided recom- mendations. The Lane County Planning Commission reviewed the plan, but had no recommendations. The Eugene Planning Commission agreed with the Spring- field Planning Commission's recommendations for the items that it is respon- sible for. Ms. Smith described information contained in a packet provided to the elected officials, noting that it included the set of criteria for approving a re- finement plan, proposed amendments to the Metro Plan, TransPlan, and the Urban Facilities Plan, and proposed zone changes. She noted that the crite- ria were read into the record at the time of the planning commission public hearings. Four additional pieces of testimony to be added into the record at this public hearing are also included in the packet. Ms. Smith stated that the adoption of a refinement plan is treated as a leg- islative matter. However, because of the site-specific nature of certain recommended proposals, the City has chosen to treat those in a quasi-judicial manner. Ms. Smith stated that the Gateway area includes 400 acres outside the city limits. She said that the area is not set up for future infrastructure plan- MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials January 29, 1992 Page 3