My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item A: Metro Plan Boundary Adjustment Proposal
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2011
>
CC Agenda - 11/30/11 Work Session
>
Item A: Metro Plan Boundary Adjustment Proposal
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/23/2011 4:26:26 PM
Creation date
11/23/2011 4:03:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
11/30/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />ECC <br />UGENE ITY OUNCIL <br />AIS <br />GENDA TEM UMMARY <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Work Session: Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Boundary <br /> <br />Adjustment Proposal <br /> <br />Meeting Date: November 30, 2011 Agenda Item Number: A <br />Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Alissa Hansen <br />www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5508 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />ISSUE STATEMENT <br /> <br />This work session provides an opportunity to update the City Council on the proposed Eugene- <br />Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) boundary amendment to adjust the boundary <br />on the Springfield side of the plan. While not a part of the current proposal, the legal and policy <br />considerations related to adjusting the Metro Plan boundary on the Eugene side will also be addressed. <br /> <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br /> <br />Earlier this year, the Lane County Board of Commissioners initiated an amendment to the Metro Plan to <br />make adjustments to the boundary of the plan. This proposal is directly related to the five areas of <br />concern identified by the board and discussed by the joint elected officials over the past few years. The <br />purpose of this particular amendment is to seek jurisdictional autonomy on land use matters for those <br />areas that are outside the urban growth boundaries of Springfield and Eugene, but currently inside the <br />Metro Plan boundary. <br /> <br />The current Metro Plan amendment under consideration is to reduce the size of the Metro Plan boundary <br />on the east side of I-5, with a resulting Metro Plan boundary that would be coterminous with <br />Springfield’s urban growth boundary (UGB). Adjustment of the Metro Plan boundary on the Eugene <br />side is not part of the current proposal. Lane County intends to propose a Metro Plan boundary change <br />on the Eugene side at a later date. A copy of the current Metro Plan diagram, including the boundary, is <br />provided as Attachment A. <br /> <br />Based on the Metro Plan’s amendment procedures, Eugene is required to participate in this proposal to <br />adjust the boundary on the Springfield side. The process includes a joint planning commission public <br />hearing and recommendation, followed by a joint elected official’s public hearing and action. All three <br />jurisdictions must approve the same Metro Plan boundary location for the proposal to take effect. In <br />July, the joint planning commissions (Lane County, Springfield and Eugene) held the required public <br />hearing, and held a continued hearing in August. Following the close of the public hearing record, the <br />three planning commissions met jointly in October for deliberations and to provide recommendations to <br />their respective elected officials. The Lane County Planning Commission voted 7-2 to recommend <br />denial of the proposal to the Lane County Board of Commissioners. The City of Springfield voted 4-2 <br />to recommend approval to the Springfield City Council, with a condition that Springfield and Lane <br />County enter into an agreement to address concerns about authority over Springfield’s drinking water <br />wells. The Eugene Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the proposal to the <br /> S:\CMO\2011 Council Agendas\M111130\S111130A.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.