CC Minutes - 06/22/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

the commission updated the work program to refer to work currently underway rather than projects that no longer existed. Mr. Tollenaar said that the changes seemed to go beyond an update of nomenclature by suggesting that the land use regulatory program was part of a larger overall regulatory system. He asked what other regulations existed of which the Land Use Code was a part and how the code related to other regulatory systems, such as building regulations or business licensing. Ms. Childs responded that the text was more focused on the day-to-day relationship between Chapter 9, which related to land use and zoning basis, and other chapters, such as those related to engineering standards. She said the City did not include everything related to development requirements in Chapter 9. Mr. Croteau reminded the council that its Growth Management Study policies included a policy regarding the need to control urban sprawl outside of cities. He said that staff had discussed the Growth Management Study with the smaller adjacent cities, and learned that no matter the size all such communities were concerned about growth management and public facility planning. Mr. Croteau suggested that a proper forum for raising issues related to the topic of growth would the Lane Council of Governments Board, which was a planning forum that includes representatives of special districts, small cities, and public utility providers in Lane County. Mr. Farr asked if it was staff's perception that the small Lane County cities were encouraging growth. Mr. Croteau said that some communities, such as Oakridge and Westfir, were trying to revive their economies after the loss of timber-related jobs. Other communities, such as Elmira, were attempting to address pent-up demand for housing in their areas, and were having problems providing the needed infrastructure; for example, Veneta had instituted a sewer moratorium. He did not believe those communities were actually encouraging growth. Mr. Farr believed that as Eugene attempted to control its growth, people would be driven to another community to live. He did not want to create urban sprawl or force growth on other communities. Regarding the Bethel Scoping Study, Mr. Farr asked if staff had considered how to get Bethel representatives to join the commission for that effort. Mr. Bowers anticipated that the City would hold one-on-one meetings with local Bethel leaders regarding the concept and ask them for suggestions as to who they wanted to see involved. Mr. Farr said that given the lack of direct commission representation from the Bethel area, staff would need to make a special effort to solicit input. Ms. Childs differentiated the scoping study from a refinement or neighborhood plan, and said that a minimum the commission would receive status reports and updates on the scoping study in a manner similar to the West University Scoping Study, but she did not know at this point if the commission would actually deliberate about the study. Regarding the issue of pushing growth outside the urban growth boundary, Mr. Meisner recollected that the commission, during the Growth Management Study, had carried on discussions with the small communities. He believed that those communities were somewhat open to further development but were very concerned about how that development occurred. He did not believe that any of those communities were interested in becoming bedroom communities for Eugene to accommodate sprawl. Mr. Meisner said that the Dillard Road development did not involve development within a urban growth boundary of a smaller community, but development on county land. He advocated for a discussion with the Board of County Commissioners on how development occurred on what he termed "transitional lands." He asked the commission to give the council some ideas on how to address the topic with the board. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1998 Page 5 6p.m.