Ordinance No. 19917 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Res apse to 7.4b5~2~tb}: Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metropolitan P Area General Plan internally inconsistent. The Metro Plan is acknowledged by the state for compliance with applicable goals. Post-acknowled ement requirements for.UGB amendments require a goal exception when g resource land is converted for urban use and a Goal 14 Urbanization analysis. These issues have been addressed by this report. The proposal does not seek to amend the plan text nor is such amendment necessary. The exce Lions process is specified in the plan, these seven factors are included in P Cha ter II of the plan as is the statement that the boundary may require further P adjustment over time. The Growth Management and the Urban Service Area goal states the following: "Use urban, urbanizable, and rural lands efficient~3y. Encourage orderly and efficient conversion of land from rural to urban uses in response to urban needs, taking into account metro olitan and statewide goals. Protect rural lands best suited for P nonurban uses from incompatible urban encroachment." B virtue of the requirements of Goal 2 and Goal 14, this report has shown how the Y ro osed amendment is consistent with the Metro Plan's growth management goal. P p These lots are not used efficiently if they are left in an agricultural designation; these lots are adjacent to existing urban uses an an urban transportation system; these lots already have undergone same partial urbanization as a result of land division and residential development; the size, location, topography and soil classification of these lots does not make them well suited for nonurban uses; and, the rinciples of orderly and efficient extension of services and compact urban P rowth, embodied in the PFP proposal for this area, is not served by the g continuation of an agricultural designation of these lots. The lan diagram will be~changed from an agricultural designation to Low Density -.. p Residential, as will the zoning. This is consistent with existing use of this property as well as abutting uses, zoning and plan designations. Res onse to 7.4b5~2}~c~: The amendment is not a Plan update amendment, unless the P amendment has been initiated by the governing bodies of the City of Eugene, City of Springfield and Lane Gounty» The 'oint elected officials of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County unanimously ? lution and Order on Februar 4, 1992. initiated this amendment by Reso Y Conclusion and Recommendation This report includes responses to all applicable criteria of the Metro Flan, Statewide Goals, ORS and OAR concerning the exceptions and urbanization processes. This report has demonstrated that the proposed inclusion of these lots is consistent with the aforementioned criteria. On March lb, 1993 the joint planning commissions voted unanimously to adapt findings in support of this action and forwarded the re nest t.o the joint elected officials with a recommendation of approval. Staff 9 recommends approval of this Urban Growth Boundary amendment and a concurrent redesi nation to Low Density Residential and requests the elected officials of g S rin field, Eugene and Lane County to adopt the findings of this report, along with p g an relevant testimony from the March 16, 1993 joint planning commission public Y hearing and the May b, 1993 joint elected officials public hearing. Exhi b~ t A - F~ nd~ ngs ~- 13