05/28/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.~- Mr. Croteau stated that 11 differences are outlined in today's handout. The Coordinating Committee will look at three areas at their next meeting. One of the things that they will be looking at is Difference No. 2-- North Springfield Community Plan. The Springfield position is that the Metropolitan Plan should completely supersede the North Springfield Community Plan, Part I of the Refinement Plan. The Lane County position is that the Metropolitan Plan should control where there is conflict, and if there are problems with the Refinement Plan, those problems should be resolved through an amendment to the North Springfield Community Plan. Discussion ensued regarding the position the City of Eugene should take on this issue. Councilor Lieuallen recommended upholding Springfield's position. Mr. Croteau noted there have been four different occasions when Springfield has been taken to court for conflicts between proposed zoning action and the North Springfield Plan. Mr. Croteau noted that if there is action to be taken it could be joint action to revise the North Spring- field Plan. Mr. Delay stated it bothers him to encourage Lane County to be involved in planning in areas adjacent to cities. He does not think that it is a good idea for them to do that unilaterally. Mr. Croteau stated there could be an interim refinement plan that could state what might be able to and might not be able to happen prior to annexation. He feels that any refinement plans that are done should be cooperative efforts rather than done by one jurisdiction. Mr. Delay noted the question is whether or not we want to see development outside of municipal areas. e Ms. Smith stated we have policies and should maintain them throughout the entire plan or we will have development that we do not want. Mayor Keller noted that if there is going to be commercial development, they should be willing to annex to the cities to receive urban services. Ms. Schue noted that the River Road-Santa Clara area was denied annexa- tion recently by the City Council on these very grounds. In regard to Glenwood and Mount Pisgah, Mr. Delay stated that if it is not clear who has jurisdiction, then a potential developer could go back and forth between the jurisdictions seeing who would make a better offer. Regarding Mount Pisgah, for the land between the two rivers inside the plan, there would be joint jurisdiction, and all three jurisdictions would have to agree on anything that happened; outside the plan would be solely Lane County jurisdiction. The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. to June 4, 1980. Respectfully submitted, ~) Charles T. Henry City Manager .e (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) CTH:LN:slb/CM23bl 5/28/80--16