Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />plan; otherwise, the change to the Metro Plan would create a conflict with the refinement plan. That <br />potential conflict was the reason behind the provision for an automatic refinement plan amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki asked where criterion (b), New inventory material which relates to a statewide <br />goal, was addressed in the application. Mr. Nystrom reiterated that the City did not have a new formal <br />inventory that could be used in the decision making process. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki, Mr. Howe concurred with the remarks of Mr. <br />Nystrom in regard to the refinement plan amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Hledik determined from Mr. Nystrom that in the case of an inconsistency between the Metro Plan and <br />the refinement plan, the Metro Plan prevailed. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Dignam, moved to recommend the Board of County Com- <br />missioners approval of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan amend- <br />ment as requested and refined in the Huntington Crossing application based on 1) the <br />amendment is consistent with relevant statewide planning goals, and 2) adoption is not in- <br />consistent with the Metro Plan as defined in Eugene Code Section 9.7730. The motion <br />carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to recommend to the Eugene City Council <br />the approval of the application to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General <br />Area Plan and Willakenzie Area Refinement Plan. The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. <br /> <br />(Recorded by Kimberly Young) <br /> <br />October 24, 2006 <br /> <br />Page 8 <br />