Ordinance No. 20089 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORDINANCE NO. Zoos AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM AND THE WILLAKENZIE AREA PLAN DIAGRAM AND SUBAREA MAP TO REDESIGNATE A PORTION OF PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS MAP 17-03-29-4, TAX LOT 400 ~SKIPWORTH PROPERTY} FRGM COMMERCIAL T4 GOVERNMENT AND EDUCATION. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. On April 28,1997, at the request of the Lane County Board of Commissioners, the Eugene City Council initiated proceedings for a Type II Metro Plan diagram amendment and concurrent automatic amendment to the V~illakenzie Area Plan refinement plan} land use diagram and Ferry Street Bridge subarea map to redesignate the western portion of the Skipworth property, south of the Q Street Channel, from Commercial to Government and Education. B. This proposal came to the City of Eugene for action pursuant to procedures for amendment and refinement of the Metro Plan described in the Metro Plan and Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code,1971 ~EC~, which establishes the Eugene City Council as the approval body for Type II Metro Plan diagram amendments located within the incorporated city limits of Eugene. C. On May 20,1997, the Metro Plan amendment application was referred to the City of Springfield, and referral notice of the application and public hearing information was mailed to the Harlow Neighbors. D. 0n June 2, 1997, notice of the hearing was mailed to the owner of the property subj ect to the amendment, and to owners and occupants of property within 3 00 feet of the subject property. E. On June 3,1997, the proposed amendment and notice of the Ci Council hearin on tY g the amendment was mailed to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development as required by ORS 197.610. No comment was received in response to the notice. F. 0n June 10,1997, .notice of the hearing was published in the Eugene Register-Guard. G. On July 1, 1997, the Eugene Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request and voted in support of the request as submitted by Lane County. As per EC 9.130, the Planning Commission hearing was the sole evidentiary hearing on this application, and all evidence in support or opposition to the proposed amendment had to be introduced at the Planning Commission hearing. Testimony in support of the proposed amendment was provided by the applicant's representative; there was no testimony in opposition to the proposed amendment. Ordinance -1