09/03/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

IV. CONSIDERATION OF ACTIONS RELATIVE TO LCDC LETTER OF AUGUST 25, 1980, ON METRO PLAN UPDATE (memo distributed) Mr. Henry stated that there are technical problems with the Cityls sub- e mittal which are indicated in the memo and these would be discussed by Jim Croteau, Planning. Craig Greenleaf, LCDC, will discuss the recommenda- tions. Mr. Henry stated that the County has requested that the council meet with them to discuss this issue and the Chamber of Commerce has indicated that they would like to see the matter resolved. Mr. Croteau stated that following adoption of the Metro Plan Update on July 28, the City forwarded its request for acknowledgment with State goals to LCDC which is required to do a completeness check within two weeks. The letter is their response to that completeness check. ~. Croteau stated that LCDC noted several technical deficiencies in that submittal. They are: 1) Lane County plan and map for the area outside the city limits, including evidence of County adoption; 2) Lane County zoning ordinance and map for the area outside the city limits inside the urban growth boundary, including evidence of adoption; 3) County subdivision regulations applicable to the area outside the city limits inside the urban growth boundary; and 4) a City-County management agree- ment which explains~ a) how implementation of the plan will be coordi- nated between the City and County, b) how the provision of services will be coordinated between the City and County, c) annexation policies, and d) amendment procedures for the plan and urban growth boundary. Mr. Haws arrived at the meeting. Mr. Croteau said that the County will submit the first three items. e The use of Chapter 4 in the plan as the management agreement would be acceptable to LCDC, but Lane County has not yet submitted their plan indicating they will use that approach. The second portion of the letter goes beyond a description of the deficiencies and includes suggestions to help resolve the disagreement between the cities and Lane County. Mr. Delay asked if in Lane County's plan, the County is requesting that Chapter 4 be used as the management agreement. Mr. Croteau responded that that is correct. Ms. Miller questioned using Chapter 4 as an agreement of jurisdictional boundaries. She asked if this cooperative aqreement is still in existence. ~. Croteau responded that we do not have any accept- able agreement if the boundaries cannot be agreed upon but the best approach is to have agreement in the plan rather than a separate agreement. The City is still offering our adopted plan as the one it hopes Lane County will adopt. Ms. Miller noted that at the last Elected Officials Coordinating Committee meeting, the County eliminated one section of the plan. She asked if that was Chapter 4. Mr. Croteau responded that the section that had been eliminated was regarding jurisdictional boundaries, and the County replaced it with what they call an "area of influence.11 Ms. Miller stated that that would affect point 4 of the LCDC letter. She asked if two procedures would go into effect if the County proceeds with this. Mr. Croteau responded affirmatively. _. ~~ 9/3/80--4