07/25/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lieuallen said that it seemed that the County wanted to pursue maximum e residential development in whatever part of the county it found appropri- ate. Mr. Saul responded that his conclusions had been made mostly by inference. He said the County Commissioners seemed concerned by public criticism of the County's present planning programs, but whether this proposed plan responded to this criticism was not clear. Mr. Bennett said the County knew in general how many acres it needed for marginal resource land, but was not sure where they were. He referred to page 5 of a pamphlet he had which mentioned new plan categories such as agricultural forest and natural resource land, all of which he said were being redefined. He said those lands not defined as one of these types would be defined as marginal resource land. He said the County's program protected and was stricter than some plans about re?ource lands, but lowered the parcel size requirement for rural wood lands and grazing lands. He said Lane County was less restrictive about resource land than many counties, but more restrictive with marginal resource land. He said design control and clustering would help restrict development and leave larger blocks of land open for productive uses. Mr. Lieuallen said he felt the program could be explained in more direct and clear terms, but he was not sure what they were. Mr. Haws said he was most concerned with the process of the plan. He asked what kind of a check and balance systm would be used and how the City would be allowed to make input if something came up which was a detriment to the City's interest. Mr. Saul said the County Commissioners - would conduct a hearing on August 1 on the proposal and, if they decided to proceed with it, would submit it to the Lane County Planning Commission for its review. He said the Lane County Planning Commission would be expected to report back to the County Commissioners. He said the program called for amendment to all the existing county subarea plans that have been adopted to date, amendment to four chapters to the Lane Code, and changes to the Oregon statutes governing taxation. He said hearings before the Lane County Commissioners would be required, particularly for amendments to subarea plans and the County Code, at which time the City could comment. He added that with the exception of Goal 2 requirements for coordination, he was unaware of any requirement that the County work with the City. Mr. Haws asked if the County's plan would meet amendments to the 1990 Plan or require the approval of LCDC. Mr. Saul answered that it would need the approval of LCDC, but that whether the 1990 Plan must be amended was under debate. Mr. Bennett pointed out that the West Lane and Lane County planning commissions had already held four to five study sessions on the proposed county plan and had submitted their recommendations to the County Commissioners. However, he said there would be a number of opportunities for all cities to be involved in review of the plan as required by LCDC, especially the smaller cities. He said part of the 1990 Plan called for five-acre parcels on non-agricultural lands surrounding metropolitan areas. This could be a problem if the land were designated for redevelop- ment at an urban level if the land had previously been developed as five-acre parcels with houses in the middle of the parcels. He said the e County plan would look at this problem. He encouraged the Council to participate in further development of the program. 7/25/79--5 Q08