08/31/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lieuallen said he was hearing that staff had said site review e was recommended by staff and others saying site review had not been recommended, and he asked for clarification. Mr. Saul referred Council to the Planning Commission minutes which reflected that stance. He said the specific development proposed would have gone through under conditional use process. He said by attaching site review procedures to the development, it would not be an increased burden to the applicant. He said under site review, three depart- ments would review the development and make a decision. Under conditional use, the same three departments would review and make a recommendation to the Hearings Official instead of reaching de- cisions themselves. He said site review and conditional use permit could be combined with no extra delay or expense. The Planning Commission's discussion whether or not site review is necessary remains a legitimate point of discussion. He said there was a special height limitation around the Butte, there were a number of development standards within RG that are more stringent, but it was very legiti- mate to discuss imposing site review. Martha Filer, 235 East 3rd Avenue, said she did not believe it had been the majority decision of the Planning Commission that it was not necessary to have site review. She noted the vote had been even, and perhaps this issue needed more study. Mr. Saul noted the item was scheduled for Planning Commission's agenda Monday, September 12. e C. Response to LCDC's Review--Materials distributed to Council. Mr. Saul reviewed the materials. He noted LCDC had been given authority to adopt the goals regarding land-use planning and that one year from that date, the local jurisdictions were to bring the plan to LCDC to see if they were in compliance. Eugene had been reviewed in February 1977 and had been found to be in compliance with the guidelines. At the same time, LCDC had urged Eugene as a city to look at its process of planning and make it more understandable for citizens; and secondly, to work more cooperatively with other jurisdictions in metropolitan urban problems, such as transportation planning, sewage, and urban service boundary. He continued that LCDC is required to evaluate on an annual basis to determine if the jurisdiction is still in compliance or to determine if the jurisdiction is making satisfactory progress toward achieving compliance. As Eugene had been found to be in compliance, the annual review will be to see whether it continues to be in com- pliance. The review is scheduled for September 9. Mr. Saul referred to the proposed letter to LCDC which responds to several points; namely, the City still remains in compliance, and a review of action the City has taken to address the concerns expressed at the February 1977 meeting. In addition, he said, the letter responds to LCDC's concerns in working with Springfield and Lane County in the areas of concern. He noted the two-phase economic reports had been included. e fob I 8/31/77--10