Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/03/1985 Meeting " ~ '. M I NUT E S Eugene City Council, Springfield City Council, and Lane Board of Commissioners Joint Public Hearing Metropolitan Area General Plan Mid-Period Review Proposed Plan Amendments Springfield City Council Chambers--225 North Fifth Street December 3, 1985 7 p.m. PRESENT: Christine Larson, Council President; Richard Gorman, Linda Christenson, Fred Simmons, John Kelley, Richard Gassman, Springfield Ci ty Counc i 1 . Mayor Brian Obie, Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman, Richard Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Roger Rutan, Emily Schue, Cynthia Wooten, Eugene City Council. Chair Peter DeFazio, John Ball, Chuck Ivey, Bill Rogers, Jerry Rust, Lane County Commissioners. The joint pUblic hearing was called to order by Springfield City Council President Christine Larson. She welcomed officials and guests and said it was hoped that public testimony would be concluded this evening. She noted that e neither the Lane County Board of Commissioners nor either of the City Councils would take action tonight. She said deliberations and final decisions were scheduled for Springfield on December 16, and for Eugene and Lane County in January. Ms. Larson reviewed the process undergone so far for the Metropolitan Plan Mid-Period Review. She asked whether any officials had not filled out con- flict of interest or ex-parte contact forms and wished to declare. Seeing none, she explained the process to be used for testifying. Ms. Larson said one public hearing would be held for plan text and auxiliary map amendments, and she asked that those testifying identify which item was being addressed. She said discussion would follow among elected officials. Ms. Larson said individual public hearings would be held for each of the items B-1 through B-26 of the plan diagram amendments and described the hearing pro- cess. Steve Gordon of L-COG presented general staff comments, noting the roles played by MAPAC and MPC in the Mid-Period Review. He said many of the pro- posed amendments being considered tonight had emerged from a series of hear- ings held by Planning Commissions in January of 1984. He said six documents had been prepared during the process--a status report, a plan evaluation report, a flood hazard working paper, a monitoring report, volume 1 of the MPC e: MINUTES--Joint, Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 1 -. Report containing background material for the MPC recommendation, and volume 2 of the MPC Report containing all of the proposed amendments to the plan that were the subject of tonight's hearing in section II. Mr. Gordon said staff had prepared two packets summarizing the planning commissions' recommendations on text and diagram amendments. He said tonight's record was the same one that had been before the planning commissions, and the minutes and written testimony of previous hearings. In addition, officials' conflict of interest and ex-parte contact statements also were included in the record, and were available for review outside the chambers. He said the hearing on text and auxiliary map amendments was legislative in nature. 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON METROPOLITAN PLAN TEXT AND AUXILIARY MAP AMENDMENTS A. Staff Presentation Mr. Gordon said he thought the main issues that had emerged from the planning commission recommendations on the text included a new policy #21, calling for a growth alternative study; differing recommendations on natural resource and archeological policies; and what the role of MAPAC should be in the future amendment process--either remaining the same or becoming more focused on monitoring the citizen involvement process. He also said staff recommended that officials take advantage of the opportunity at the joint hearing to discuss any positions on critical issues and to identify areas of major differences. e Mr. DeFazio declared a meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners in session. Ms. Larson declared a meeting of the Springfield City Council in sessi on. Mr. Obie noted that members of the Eugene City Council were in attendance to hear testimony and to receive information, but were outside of their jurisdiction for deliberation of the issues. He added that Councilor Jeff Miller's absence was excused, and he would be reviewing the tapes and minutes of the meeting. Mr. Rust asked what sort of process staff perceived for resolving any differ- ences. Mr. Gordon said staff hoped any differences could be narrowed to a manageable number, and if they could not be resolved during the adoption pro- cess, MPC again could be used as an intergovernmental forum for review of differences and development of compromises. B. Open Public Hearing on Text and Auxiliary Map Amendments Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on items A-l through A-27. C. Public Testimony Jon Silvermoon, 2441 Madison, Eugene. Mr. Silvermoon said he thought the type of proposals in the handout generally were more reactive than active, adding that no inventory of archeological resources ever had been done for most of the metropolitan area. He said 23 metro areas were known to contain resources at present. He suggested a more active method of conducting inventories on areas of the city such as those that were about to be annexed or were becoming e MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 2 more urban, before development started, in order to avoid a conflict resolu- e tion process later in determining the significance of the resource. He said he thought present proposals were good, but could be made better by including in the working paper how an inventory of land not yet covered could be done, so that sites could be identified before they become a problem for developers or projects. He also said he thought the resources should be considered an asset to the community rather than a hindrance to development, adding that some communities in California had uncovered archeological resources inside the cities and had built museums and tourist attractions. He said he knew of two sites in Mt. Pisgah on lane County land, a site in Skinner Butte Park, one in the Washburn Historic District in Springfield, and one in Wi11amalane's Dorris Ranch Park. Mr. Silvermoon said he thought policy #36 (item 8), dealing with newly iden- tified resources, was contradictory in stating both "In no more than 30 days" and "in a timely manner. II He said if an exception to the 30 days was intended, that should be clarified. He also said he thought it was important to make explicit interim protection for the resources or site for the time between identification and completion of the process. Mr. Si1vermoon referred to the proposed deletion of Policy #1, (volume 2, page 39-40) under the energy element. He said he understood that the policy dealing with a metropolitan energy management plan would be replaced with a new policy to: "Use and continue to update information and recommendations contained in the 'Lane Electric Energy Planning Program: Final Report. III He said he had finally obtained a copy of the report after trying unsuccessfully e for two weeks. He said neither EWEB nor the Eugene Planning Department had a copy of the report, but l-COG eventually had located one, and he added that when staff made the recommendation, they had not read the report. Mr. Silvermoon said he had not had time to read the report in detail, but it dealt only with electrical energy, and not with other forms of energy in the metropolitan area. He said the report did not include a number of actions called for under current policy, including establishing current and projected energy demands for various sectors of the metropolitan economy. He suggested that staff be directed to rework the pOlicy, adding that he understood the need to use information already developed, but the policy should not be replaced with the report, especially since EWEB had claimed the report con- tains outdated information. He said a policy incorporating current policy and the information from the report would be important to the metropolitan area. Mr. Silvermoon said the policy calling for a Growth Rate Management Study on page 9 of section II, volume 2, was proposed for deletion and replacement by a policy discussing the impacts of growth. He said the new policy did not have the same intent as the original, adding that he thought feasibility studies should be done when growth was not rapid and exerting pressures. He sa i d he thought the constituency still existed in the area to do that type of study, and doing the study now could diminish future controversy that might result. e MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 3 Jeff Stier, 958 West 11th, Eugene. Mr. Stier said the primary assumption of e the Metropolitan Plan was an expected population of 293,700 in the metro area by the year 2000. He also noted that because the plan was designed to accom- modate the expected population rather than to remain static until 2000, it could be adjusted periodically as changes in population trends were detected. He said recent population trends indicated to him that the assumption probably would not be met until 2050 or 2085. Mr. Stier noted the changes proposed to the fourth paragraph of the introduction (volume 2, section II, page 1), and said he thought now was the time to adjust the plan because it was clear the population level would not be met by 2000. He added that the $142 million worth of local road improvements mentioned in the TransPlan might not be necessary if that population level is not reached. He also questioned whether the Urban Growth Boundary should be expanded, as requested in item B-23, Awbrey-Meadow View Industrial Site, adding that perhaps the boundary should be diminished. Richard Gold, 2354 Emerald Street, Eu ene. Mr. Gold said he had requested ln ormatlon from several ot er Oregon clties on wetlands protection. He submitted a copy of the Tua1atin Development Code 71.010-71.090 on establish- ment of a Wetlands Protection District, adding that he hoped to save valuable resources when doing development such as the Sixth and Seventh avenues exten- sion in West Eugene. Mr. Gold referred to the proposed amendment to the first paragraph of Page 11-0-3, (volume II, section II, page 12) and to Finding 1 (volume I, section III, page 39) concerning the low-density residential land surplus. He sug- e gested that the policy planning option appeared to disregard unfavorable data, and he said he objected to the idea of residential land use encroaching upon urbanization. He said urbanization was in fact encroaching upon residential areas and open space, adding that documentation by aerial photography was available. He also noted that a low-density residential land surplus should not cause encroachment on urban areas. Mr. Gold said the bias of the author was explicit in the statement that programs should be based particularly on goals dealing with the promotion of economic development. He also discussed the change basing the land surplus on development over the past six to ten years, rather than over the three years previously stated, suggesting that older data could be used to offset or to replace the more recent unfavorable data, even though the more recent data probably was more indicative of current trends. Don Drisco11--Driscol1, Hess, Associates, 1358 Oak Street, Eu ene. (represent- lng L aSln property owners r. rlSCO sal e a su m1 ed to offi- cials and to the planning commissions a letter of October 30, summarizing requests pertaining to items 3, 18, 19, and 20. He said the request had included maintaining Policy 21 as it was (volume II, section II, page 10). He also said a request had been submitted to the County Commissioners in 1982 for a study of the LCC Basin, including discussion of a process for citizen initiation of plan amendments, how the three jurisdictions would respond, and how the cost of such studies would be paid. He said the proposal had been based specifically on the present Policy 21, and the replacement policy would include the LCC Basin, in addition to a number of other potential areas for e MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 4 inclusion within the UGB. Mr. Driscoll urged officials not to forget the - clear, strong reasons for including POlicy 21. He also said the LCC Basin had been moved in and out of the plan several times, adding that if the area was not to be included in the UGB, property owners would prefer that it be taken out altogether so that it would come only under the jurisdiction of the County, rather than of all three governments. He also said proposed studies might clarify the pOlicy. Mr. Driscoll said seven requests had been submitted regarding the LCC Basin as a potential high-tech industrial park with research and educational facili- ties. He said three requests also had been submitted regarding the process for citizen-initiated amendments, adding that he thought staff and planning commissions had greatly improved the process, but some difficulties still existed in trying to coordinate between the three jurisdictions. Mr. Driscoll said property owners urged adoption of the policies, but would prefer the original policy 21. He also said they commended planning commissions, staffs, and officials for their efforts. Mr. Driscoll said policy 21 had clearly specified that a plan was to be prepared for the basin prior to the next plan update. He said this plan had waited since 1982 for the Mid-Period Review, but he understood that MAPAC and MPC were considering a timeline for an alternative growth area study that would include the LCe Basin, to be initiated in January and possibly with some result in June. He urged officials to implement that process as well. Mr. Rust said he thought Mr. Driscoll should be commended for his involvement. e D. Close Public Hearing Hearing no further requests to speak, Ms. Larson closed the public hearing on the plan text and auxiliary map amendments. E. Discussion, Comments, Questions Ms. Larson opened the floor for discussion of public testimony on plan text and auxiliary map amendments. Mr. Holmer asked staff to respond to Mr. Silvermoon1s statement regarding the proposed energy policy addressing only electrical energy. Mr. Gordon said Mr. Silvermoon's statement was correct, and officials directed staff to review the existing policy in the plan and the Lane Electric Plan more carefully and to come back with a recommendation. Mr. Rust also suggested that staff review the wording of Goal 5 and clarify the language about the 30-day time limit, the preliminary judgment on the identified natural resource, and what would happen after that. Ms. Larson noted that only wording, not content, was to be changed. Mr. Ivey said he questioned the population figure of 293,000, and some members indicated that he was not alone in that feeling. Mr. DeFazio said he under- stood that when the T-2000 Plan was developed the population projections should continue to be used because statistics from the late 1970s were an e MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 5 aberration from a long-term trend of regular growth. He also said he thought e that if the late 70s were a time of aberrant growth, nothing should be predicated upon those years, and instead the long-term trend line should be used. Mr. Gordon said an attempt was being made to drop use of any specific year, adding that MAPAC had recommended a new fundamental principle as a result of several discussions by it and MPC about growth trends in the area. He said the growth patterns of the late 170s and the recession of the early '80s had tended to counterbalance one another and to put the rate close to l-COG1s projected trend line. Mr. Gordon said although the direction of future growth was unknown, the plan was being designed to aim for land needs of a population level of 293,000, regardless of the year that level was reached. He also said the change in the policy on the monitoring period for projections called for maintaining a six- to ten-year supply of residential land. He noted that the time was needed to prepare raw land for development by rezoning, making improvements, etc., and he added that staff had intended only to make the projections more statistically accurate. Mr. DeFazio said using the period six- to ten-years ago would include only the years 1976 through 1980, which was a period of aberrant growth. Mr. Gordon said those figures would be balanced by more recent figures. Mr. DeFazio asked why longer term figures would not be used. Mr. Ivey said the year for the population projection might be uncertain, but a timeframe still existed for the plan. Mr. Gordon said a mathematical time- e frame of 20 years was used for the projections, but it was believed that the population figure would be reached eventually, and the emphasis of the plan was not to meet the projections for the UGB in exactly the year 2000. Ms. Wooten said she disagreed completely with the population forecasts and she thought they should be reconsidered by the three jurisdictions before any final action was taken on the plan, because of problems they would cause con- cerning flexibility in capital improvements planning. She also asked for an explanation of why MAPAC and MPC had chosen not to do a survey of archaeologi- cal resources. Mr. Gordon said Mr. Silvermoon and others at the University of Oregon had submitted a 50-page report on archaeological resources of the metro area. He said MPC had been offered options to consider amendments during three timeframes: the Mid-Period Review, future studies, or the next update, and MPC directed staff to consider archaeological resources during the Mid Period Review only if time existed for development of a working paper. He said an attempt had been made to develop some policies in conjunction with the archaeological resources working paper. He said some difficulties existed in locating archeological resources and in funding inventories. He also said the Eugene Planning Commission had discussed the reactive/active role mentioned by Mr. Silvermoon, adding that members had expressed concerns both about archae- ological resources and about economic development, but the expertise and con- sensus did not exist among governments and staff on methods. Mr. Hansen suggested discussing population projections in conjunction with TransPlan. e MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 6 Mr. Simmons said he thought a time period longer than six to ten years should e be used for population projections. Mr. Holmer said the thought the staff population estimate was fine and the flexibility of the the plan should be endorsed, adding that he thought either six or ten years should be chosen for the projection period. Mr. DeFazio said he supported Councilor Wooten's comments and disagreed with Mr. Hansen because he had been told during discussions of the TransPlan that those population projections needed to be consistent with those of the Metro Plan. He said some expensive capital improvements had useful lives of from 15 to 50 years, and accurate growth figures were needed in order to make the proper improvements at the necessary time. No further comments were offered, and Ms. Larson said individual jurisdictions would continue discussions later. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON METROPOLITAN PLAN DIAGRAM AMENDMENTS Mr. Gordon said copies of information packets were available at the table. He said the record included summaries of recommendations, Planning Commission minutes from previous meetings, and copies of officials' conflict of interest and ex parte contact forms. He also said five pieces of written testimony had been submitted to L-COG before the deadline, and copies of those also were available as part of the record. Mr. Gordon said because diagram amendments e affected a narrow group of property owners, staff recommended using a quasi- judicial hearing process. He also recommended that officials take the oppor- tunity to discuss the proposals after the individual hearings were closed. Index No. B-l-a Barger-Beltline Develo~ment Node Index No. B-l-b Royal-Danebo Floatin~ ode Index No. B-l-c West Bethel-Danebo F oating Node Index No. B-l-d Laurel Hill Floating Node Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendments B-1. Mr. Gordon presented the staff report. No testimony was offered, and Ms. Larson closed the public hearing on items B-l-a, b, c, and d. Index No. B-2 Highway 99 East Side Commercial Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment B-2. Mr. Gordon presented the staff report. No testimony was offered, and Ms. Larson closed the pUblic hearing on item B-2. Index No. B-3 West 11th North Side Commercial Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment B-3. Mr. Gordon e presented the staff report. He said the record should include a request from MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 7 the applicant, modifying the request to reduce the area to be designated com- e mercial on the north side of West 11th Avenue. Mike Yea er, 1065 Hi h Street, Eu ene, representing Pacific First Federal aV1ngs an , spo e 1n support 0 t e request. He said the bank and seven or eight other land owners in the area were asking that Eugene City Council Resolution No. 3885 be implemented, to allow mixed commercial and industrial activities under certain circumstances. He reviewed the report and supple- mental letter submitted to the record and said the revised request was to redesignate the area, containing 73 percent developed buildings and three vacant acres, Community Commercial, so that the same treatment could be applied for on the north and south sides of West 11th Avenue. Mr. Yeager said he believed three of the four criteria under Resolution No. 3885 to eventually allow for C-4 zoning could be met. He said approval of the request would allow private landowners in the area to apply for C-4 zoning or to maintain the existing 1-2 industrial zoning. He added that it would not erode the industrial land supply because C-4 zoning allowed 1-2 uses. Mr. Yeager said surroundings on the south side of the area included an auto parts store, a tire store, a bank, and a restaurant, all of which were allowed in C-4 (1-2 does not allow restaurants.), and some vacant land designated commercial. He said the north side included two restaurants, a cabinet shop, a veterinary clinic, and storage warehouses. He said the restaurants and vet clinic were non-conforming uses, and flexibility of use was hampered. Mr. Yeager said the bank had received some indications of interest in the restaurant sites and was subsidizing one restaurant. He said C-4 zoning would allow the buildings to be put to higher intensity uses, adding that there did not appear to be any e market there for 1-2 uses. He said the buildings and utilities already existed and should be used. No further testimony was offered, and Ms. Larson closed the public hearing on item B-3. Index No. 8-4 North Delta (Banfield) Commercial Mr. Gordon presented the staff report. Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment B-4. No testimony was offered. Ms. Ehrman asked how long action would be postponed if officials accepted thef recommendations to re-evaluate the item as part of the Commercial Lands Study. Mr. Gordon said staff had recommended to MAPAC and MPC that the study begin in fall 1986, at the final stages of the Growth Alternative Study. He said the study should be completed in the spring of 1987 and the plan amendments could be considered immediately as part of the plan update. Mr. Hansen stated that he thought a conflict of interest could develop later, therefore he would abstain from voting and discussion on item 8-4. Ms. Larson closed the public hearing on item B-4. e MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 8 Index No. B-6 Booth-Kelly Mixed Use e Mr. Gordon presented the staff report, noting that revised maps had been included as part of the planning commission record. Ms. larson opened the pUblic hearing on diagram amendment 8-6. No testimony was offered, and Ms. Larson closed the public hearing. Index No. B-7 Washburne Historic District Mr. Gordon presented the staff report. Ms. Larson opened the pUblic hearing on diagram amendment B-7. No testimony was offered, and the public hearing was closed. Index No. B-8 Springfield Millrace (inside UGB) Mr. Gordon presented the staff report, referring to revised maps in the record and noting the differing recommendations on the item. Ms. larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment 8-9. No testimony was offered, and the public hearing was closed. Ms. Schue asked for an explanation of the differing recommendations. Mr. Gordon said all three planning commissions had made their recommendations using the same information base. Joe Hudzikiewicz of Lane County said the e lane County Planning Commission had expressed concerns about Springfield's ability to finance the project, about encouraging trespassing on the lands, and about surrounding agricultural uses. He added that commissioners also felt more study was needed before they would be convinced of the project1s necessity. Ms. Bascom asked about the origin of the proposal. Springfield Planning Director Greg Winterowd said the proposal had existed for at least two years. He said a downtown commission had been formed three or four years ago to examine the G-P mill site known as the Booth-Kelly site, along with the down- town area. He said the commission and staff had felt the site should be developed as a recreational resource. He said changes to staff recommenda- tions had been suggested by representatives of G-P, and the intent was to keep the site open for the long-term project, which he added was not presently funded. Mr. DeFazio asked what the practical effect on area property owners would be of designating open space. Mr. Winterowd said there would be no practical effect in the short term. In the long term, he said it might be possible for the City to acquire some of the land or to have it donated. He said the alternative--to designate the area as natural resource, which would limit even agricultural activity,--was not wanted. He also said the open space designa- tion would in no way limit agriculture or give people the right to trespass on private property. e MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 9 Index No. 8-9 Coburg/County Farm Road Commercial e Mr. Gordon presented the staff report. He said the intent was to establish headquarter offices for the Wi1dish Land Company. Teresa Bishow of the Eugene Planning Department distributed a December 3, 1985, memo containing additional recommendations from the Eugene Planning Commission. Ms. Bishow said the com- mission recommended approval of the request and indication in the record of two points: that the commercial area designated was at the low end of the Community Commercial range and was not meant to become a 40-acre community commercial center, and that upon annexation, the City of Eugene shall consider application of a zoning district that would allow office-based use and yet not allow general retail activities. The record also was to indicate that Eugene shall consider application of site review to ensure buffering along surround- ing Low-Density Residential land and safe, efficient ingress and egress. Ms. Wooten noted that a similar request repeatedly had been denied, and she asked what circumstances were different now. Ms. Bishow said a more limited general office zoning district now existed to allow office use without general retail. She also said growth had occurred in the area, and it seemed appro- priate to allow development because of the particular request for use of the land as office headquarters. Responding to a question from Mr. Hansen, Ms. Bishow said the property owner was willing to agree to the general office zoning district. . Mr. Ivey asked why the Lane County Planning Commission had recommended denial. Ms. Bishow said she thought the recommendation was made because of oPPosing e public testimony presented at the hearing by property owners immediately across the road from the proposed project who favored retaining the Low- Density Residential designation. Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment 8-9. Randall Hledik, P.O. Box 7428, Eugene, representing Wildish Land Company, spoke in favor of the request. He said the request would allow construction of a corporate headquarters building at the junction of Coburg and County Farm roads, on about five acres. He said work had begun on the project in 1979, and no opportunity had ever existed for a full hearing. He said the recommen- dation was favored by all planning commissions except Lane County, adding that Lane County had recommended including the request in the Commercial Lands Study. Mr. Hledik said he felt the type of use being proposed was not appro- priate to include in that study, and he asked for concurrence with the request. Mr. Obie asked about the size of the proposed office building. Mr. Hledik said only a five-acre section at the bottom of the 40-acre triangle would be affected by the 40,000-square-foot, two-story office building and by parking for approximately 200 automobiles and pick-ups. He said the area was not meant to serve heavy equipment such as dump trucks or concrete mixers, but was intended for use by engineers, estimators, and accounting and other adminis- trative personnel. e MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 10 Responding to a question from Mr. Obie, Ms. Bishow said the Eugene Planning e Commission had made its recommendation for clarification because the Metro Plan diagram would show an area indicated in red that was not site specific and might be subject to later expansion. Mr. Obie suggested more clarifica- tion. He also asked whether any zoning existed that would allow the desired use without raising neighbors' fears about commercial intrusion into the neighborhood. Ms. Bishow said the general office zoning district would allow office use, but not retail activities such as fast food restaurants, clothing or book stores. Eugene Planning Director Susan Brody said approval of the amendment would allow the designation IICoRlllunity Commercial II to be shown on the plan diagram for the area. She said if the area was annexed, it could be rezoned to any commercial zoning category. Ms. Brody said the Planning Com- mission had clarified its intent that if rezoning occurred, it would be to General Office zoning. She added that General Office was considered a com- mercial zone under the Eugene code. Mr. Hledik said Wildish had applied for commercial designation only because no designation existed for office use. He also said they had no problems with the restrictions. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Hledik said access would be via County Farm Road. He also said the balance of the 40-acre parcel was owned by Wildish, and the remaining 35 acres of property would continue to be desig- nated Low-Density Residential. He added that the property was a vacant field at present. e No further testimony was offered, and Ms. Larson closed the public hearing on item B-9. Index No. 8-10 Santa Clara Floating Node Mr. Gordon presented the staff report. Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment B-10. Gordon Elliott, 1414 Polk Street/1267 Irvin ton Drive, Eu ene, spoke in OppOS1 tion. He said he ad een invo ved 1n eve opment 1n the Eugene area for several decades and he thought downzoning should not be done without a very good reason because of the difficulty it causes in long-term planning. He described his difficulties with the planning process and said statewide goals for development and improvements at the least public expense were being ignored. He said he had all utilities necessary for development of his property, but it had been zoned only for agricultural use. He also said sewer lines had been laid near his property, but he was told he could not hook up to them. Mr. Elliott said land that would have met the statewide goals could have been obtained but was left out because it was not in a city tax base. Ms. Larson informed Mr. Elliott that he had reached the time limit for testi- mony, and she called a five-minute recess. e MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 11 Ms. Larson reopened the meeting following the recess and said one other e speaker had withdrawn his request to testify in opposition to diagram amend- ment B-10. There were no additional requests to speak, and Ms. Larson closed the public hearing on item B-10. Index No. B-11 Irving Road Industrial Site Mr. Gordon presented the staff report, noting that MPC had been unable to resolve the item. He said MPC had forwarded two positions--to change the existing light medium industrial designation to special light industrial, and to leave the light medium industrial designation or to change it to residen- tial. He said all three planning commissions had recommended denial of the request for special light industrial designation, and Lane County and Eugene had agreed that upon annexation, the City of Eugene should consider site review to buffer the area. Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment B-ll. Jim Hale, 4064 Meredith Court, Eugene, spoke in favor of the request. He said the Irving Road Industrial Site satisfied the criteria for designation as special light industrial, as the MAPAC findings in the packet indicated. He said the River Road/Santa Clara Citizen's Advisory Team had agreed when it had made its recommendation calling for the amendment. He said the record also indicated that the existing Light-Medium industrial designation was considered unacceptable to neighboring residents and the citizens' committee that worked on the refinement plan. He said the Metro Plan called for annexation prior to e development, and the Eugene 1-2 zoning must be applied to the area under the existing designation. He said 1-2 uses were not acceptable to residents, and those were listed in the letter from Harold Chapman. Mr. Hale said many of the 1-2 uses could not be accommodated solely by site review or by pun pro- cedures, and residents were concerned not only about buffering, but about restricting uses to the more narrow list in the 1-1 zone. He said the site was not perfect for special light industrial, but neither were the large majority of other special light industrial sites. He said a wider definition of special light industrial was being used, and he thought the property qualified under that definition. He also said development of property in West Eugene would require substantial capital investment although transportation access was already present at the Irving Road site. He noted the Springfield Planning Commission's vote was 4 to 3 in opposition. Mr. Hale also said no other zone was applicable, and perhaps the special light industrial designa- tion should be re-examined. He said he would appreciate approval of the request. Responding to a question from Mr. Rust, Mr. Hale said he was speak- ing for himself rather than for MAPAC. No further testimony was offered, and Ms. Larson closed the public hearing on item B-ll. Mr. Hansen asked whether area property owners favored approval of the request. Mr. Gordon said an attempt had been made to poll the eight owners, but a low rate of response had been received. He added that the request was not initiated by a property owner. e 0 MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 12 Mr. Obie suggested that the Eugene City Council be prepared to spend a good e deal of time in its work session on reviewing background for the item. Mr. Rust indicated his interest in pursuing the matter at the County work session as well. Index No. B-12 Maxwell/River Road Commercial Mr. Gordon presented the staff report, noting that the record included a letter from property owner Andy Nordahl. Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment B-12. Andy Nordahl, 108 Bauer Lane, Eufene, spoke in favor of the request. He summarized a letter of November 8, saying two other requests for commercial strips on River Road had been approved, but his was denied. He said the house had been upgraded and was sturdy, and his proposal included landscaping and parking. He said it was not feasible to tear down the house down or build more units, and traffic probably would remain at current levels or increase. He reported no opposition from neighbors. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Nordahl said the house was used for a home occupation at present. Staff said current zoning was RA residen- tial, and neighborhood commercial was intended for parcels of less than five acres, while community commercial was for parcels of five acres or more. No additional testimony was offered, and Ms. Larson closed the public hearing e on item B-12. Responding to a question from Mr. Rust, Mr. Gordon said the original staff recommendation to deny had been based primarily on the River Road/Santa Clara Land Use Element that discouraged additional strip commercial development along River Road. Index No. B-13 Greenhill Road Industrial Mr. Gordon presented the staff report, noting that the different recommenda- tions were mainly concerned with tax lots on the northern part and their relationship to the alignment of Sixth/Seventh extension. Ms. Larson opened the pUblic hearing on diagram amendment B-13. No testimony was offered, and the public hearing was closed. Index No. B-14 Gateway Commercial (Boyles) Mr. Gordon presented the staff report. Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment B-14. Harry A. Taylor, 209 Q Street, Springfield, representing applicant Durward L. Boyles, spoke in favor of the request. He said the adjacent property owner and Mr. Boyles recently had purchased the Southern-Pacific - right-of-way for a joint development effort, so the boundary by ownership MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 13 - between low density and commercial areas no longer existed. He said the adjacent property was designated commercial, and the plan diagram was specific about indicating a triangle of residential land following the right-of-way. He said the change would square up the configuration of commercial land for a better development pattern. He said the total amount of commercial land on the south side of Be1tline was about 17 acres, and an access request was pending, approval of which he said was expected to help development of the property and traffic congestion at the Gateway intersection. He also said no extension of Colonial Drive was anticipated, and the eastern portion of the property was expected to remain residential. He said City services were adjacent on the west. Mr. Taylor concluded by saying he thought approval would be consistent with the policies in the plan because of the change in ownership. No additional testimony was offered, and Ms. Larson closed the public hearing on item B-14. Responding to a question from Mr. Gorman, Mr. Gordon said the community com- mercial designation was being sought in order to make the area commercial designation consistent with adjacent areas and site-specific landmarks in the vicinity. Index No~ 8-15 North Gateway Commercial (Cockerline) Mr. Gordon presented the staff report, describing changes that had been made to the request and noting the letter included as part of the record. . Springfield Planner Rob Lilley distributed a staff analysis of the amended request from the property owner. He said the staff report and proposal in MPC Report, volume 1, was no longer applicable, adding that it had been used as the basis of the three planning commission recommendations. Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment 8-15. George McGlasson, representing the Ramsey Waite Company in Glenwood, spoke in favor of the request. He said he had no financial interest in the proposal, but was interested in economic development. He noted that the railroad industry was being curtailed, and the trucking industry was growing in response. He said the location near a freeway was well-suited for a trucking business, and he urged officials to approve the request based on the need for additional businesses in the area. Henry Sta1ick, International Way, representing Stalick Trucks, spoke in favor of the request. He said he owned the land adjacent to Mr. Cocker1ine's and wished to provide information to help with decisions about the future development of a portion of the Gateway Light Industrial Park owned by Mr. Cockerline. Mr. Stalick said he favored approval of the rezoning of the 7.6 acres, and added that he thought the entire property as shown on map 17-03-15--1100 should be considered for future development for the truck transportation industry. He said his only interest was in encouraging devel- opment of adjoining property in a manner best suited for the area, and he . believed trucking was a compatible use for present and future businesses in MINUTES~-Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 14 the area. He said restaurants and motels in the area already served truckers, . and the new State Police Office that was being considered for the area also would be compatible. He said future businesses might include additional truck dealers, fueling stations, and truck stops or companies. He noted the impor- tance of truck transportation in maintaining a standard of living and trans- porting products to and from industries, adding that he thought the trucking industry deserved at least as much attention as the airlines. Mr. Sta1ick cited an article in The Re~ister-Guard about the decline of the railroad. He said he was experienced 1n working with the trucking industry on selecting locations for truck dealers and on providing safe, efficient ser- vice. He said nearly all dealers were now located near principal markets and freeway access, rather than in removed industrial areas. Mr. Stalick said about 60 percent of his customers came from outside the Eugene/Springfield area, adding that convenient access was important. He also noted that jobs in trucking had an average pay almost twice as high as that in high-tech because of the skills required, and he said most dealers employed from 20 to 50 people, which could rise to 200 or more in large metropolitan markets. He said the trucking industry could represent a substantial contribution to the local economy through employment, bringing in outside revenue, and movement of raw materials and finished products, and he urged approval. . Al Cockerline, 3651 Game Farm Road, spoke in favor of the request. Mr. Cockerline displayed a map of the area. He said a trucking company originally had asked to buy the 2l-acre parcel for a new truck dealership, but had discovered that it could not be used as desired. After unsuccessfully attempting to use a 4-acre parcel, he said commercial zoning for 7.6-acres on the edge of International Way was being sought by him, adding that it would not block International Way. He showed an overhead projection of the sur- roundings, including an area already annexed and zoned commercial. Mr. Cockerline said the 7.6 acres would allow for the extension of Interna- tional Way eastward as shown on a Springfield Planning map. He said the site would be isolated by buffering and landscaping, and no through traffic would be brought into the special light industrial area. Mr. Cocker1ine read statements from Springfield Planning Commissioner Cornacchia that the 7.6 acres in a corner of 240 acres were not imperative for preservation of the remaining site. He also quoted Eugene Planning Commis- sioner Prichard as having concluded, after touring all possible sites for trucking firms, that the spot had the best access to Interstate 5. Responding to Ms. Ehrmanls question, Mr. Cockerline said the request was for a zone change to commercial for a truck dealership. Mr. Gordon said an archi- tect's rendering of a dealership that was formerly proposed for the site was included in the Planning Commission record. Responding to Ms. Larson's ques- tion, Mr. Cockerline said he intended to limit the use of the site by selling property only to a truck dealership. - MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 15 No further testimony was offered, and Ms. Larson closed the pUblic hearing on - item B-15. Index No. B-16 County Shops Mr. Gordon presented the staff report. He said County shops and Pacific Northwest Bell telephone exchange parcels had been incorrectly designated Sand and Gravel inside the UGB in the existing plan. Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment B-16. No testimony was offered, and the public hearing was closed. Index No. 8-17 Santa Clara UGB Expansion Mr. Gordon presented the staff report, saying recommendations for denial were made because the request included agricultural land that was part of the flood plain. Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment B-17. No testimony was offered, and the pUblic hearing was closed. Mr. Ivey noted an error on the map, which he said he would point out later. Index No. B-18 River Loop #1 Exception Mr. Gordon said City Councils normally did not deal with exceptions, and he . reminded officials that they had the options to approve, deny, or reduce the amount of territory in the request at a public hearing. If the territory were expanded to add tax lots, Mr. Gordon said readvertisement of the amendment was required, along with another hearing and due notice to property owners. He also said those notification requirements applied to all exceptions. Mr. Gordon presented the staff report, noting that the record included a letter from the applicant, withdrawing the request. Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment B-18. Joan Rozniak, 2100 River Loop #1, tax lot 1501, spoke in opposition to the request. She said the area should not be declared rural residential because tax lot 1502 was owned by the Greenway Association and included open park area. She said all three lots along the river contained orchards, and if classified rural residential, eventually could have buildings erected. She said she did not favor buildings in an area protected by the Greenway. Mr. Rust asked staff about the basis for the withdrawal, and Mr. Gordon said the letter in the record indicated that likely rezoning would include a five- acre lot size, which would not allow the desired subdivision of the parcel, which is under ten acres in size. Ms. Larson closed the public hearing on item B-18. . MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 16 Ms. Ehrman asked whether withdrawal of the request did not end the process. - Mr. Gordon said he thought officials still should proceed because notice of the amendment had been sent to other property owners and some of them might have favored the request. Index No. 8-19 Merryman Road (Kokkeler Estates) Exception Mr. Gordon presented the staff report, noting that the conditions for excep- tions applied. Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment B-19. No testimony was offered, and the public hearing was closed. Index No. 8-20 Barger Drive UGB Expansion Mr. Gordon presented the staff report. Eugene Planner Teresa Bishow said the Eugene Planning Commission had directed staff to obtain current information concerning availability of public services to the subject property and the status of sanitary sewer facilities. She said the subject property still might be needed for a pump station, although that was no longer as certain as it had been during initial staff review. She also said the property was likely to be needed for pressure line easements, regardless of the exact loca- tion of the pump station. She said pUblic services were or could be made available to the site, and staff had re-evaluated the request and still recom- mended approval based on the size of the area. . Ms. Larson opened the pUblic hearing on diagram amendment B-20. spoke be Mr. Holmer asked for an explanation of the Lane County Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the request. Lane County Planner Joe Hudzikiewicz said he recalled concerns about recommendation #2, Vol. 1, Page 88, that property inclusion within the UGB be based on an analysis of the unique characteristics of property. He said the commission had felt the property was not unique. Ms. Ehrman asked why the property was felt to be unique. Mr. Saul said the property originally had been considered for inclusion in the UGB, but concerns had been raised about the capacity of the sanitary sewer systems. He said the plan for improvements to the system had been adopted after adoption of the Metro Plan and had occurred in 1983 and 1984, so that capacity now was suffi- cient. He said the west Eugene sewer plan also included the possibility of locating a pump station on the property, and definitely would require instal- lation of lines along the southern and eastern boundaries of the property. Ms. Wooten asked about an inventory of existing Low-Density Residential land. Mr. Gordon said that could be done. Ms. Wooten said she wanted more justifi- cation for expanding the UGB. . MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 17 Mr. Rust said he was not speaking in opposition to the request, and he asked . about differences between this property and Mr. Elliott's property, adding that he thought the unique factors mentioned above also applied to Mr. Elliott's land. He suggested including that in the work session. Ms. Wooten also requested information about the capability of easements for pump station laterals without the UGB expansion. No further testimony was offered, and Ms. larson closed the public hearing on item B-20. Index No~ B-21 McVay Highway Industrial Mr. Gordon presented the staff report, saying recommendations included an attempt to accommodate the request through amendment to the Lane County zoning code. Mr. Ivey said he understood the zoning code to be part of the plan. Mr. Gordon said the existing use was not defined as commercial in the County code, and he thought the State program allowed the flexibility to define use as recommended. County Planning Director Roy Burns said it was believed after review that an amendment to certain commercial characteristics would permit the desired use, and he said zoning codes would be coordinated with the other jurisdictions. Mr. Rogers noted that Lane County could not approve the request unilaterally, and Mr. Burns agreed, adding that the other jurisdictions could choose not to 0 comment. He also said an interpretation had been made by previous commis- sioners making street sweeping a non-conforming use. Mr. Burns said action to allow the business would require a recommendation by the Planning Commission, a draft code change, and a code amendment that would take about 60 days. Responding to a question from Mr. Hansen, Mr. Burns said the applicant intended to open an additional RV sales business on land adjacent to the existing business. He also said that could be done by changing the code to C-3, but that would not require metropolitan action. Mr. Simmons noted that difficulties had been encountered with expansion of the Emporium. Mr. Burns said that had been a zone change to industrial use. Mr. Simmons also said difficulty had occurred with the sewage disposal system, because only on-site disposal was available, and he said he was concerned about dumping contaminated wastes on nearby sites and about other environmen- tal impacts. Mr. Burns said he thought the property was served by a tank and was under a permit from DEQ. He also said impacts of expansion were subject to review at the time the request occurred. Mr. Gordon noted that a nearby resident had submitted for the record a letter supporting the lane County Planning Commission's recommendation. Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment B-21. . MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 18 . Fred Dodson, 85169 Kensin ton Drive, Pleasant Hill, representing Mid-State n ustr1a erV1ce, nc., spo e 1n avor 0 e request. He said the property had been occupied for 8 years under a conditional use permit, under which existing facilities were required to be used, and no additions or significant changes were allowed. Mr. Dodson said facilities were no longer sufficient to accommodate equipment. He said services supplied were similar to those supplied by municipalities, such as street and parking lot sweeping, and were used by several smaller communities in the area. He also said the only type of zoning that appeared to fit was M-2, contractor's equipment storage yard, adding that he did not think it fit very well. Mr. Dodson cited the impor- tance of easy access to freeways and major arterials. He said hazardous wastes were disposed of at Short Mountain, and the majority of his customers also had on-site disposal~ He said he would like to build a shop facility to better serve his needs, adding that he had been in the area for 15 years and felt it was important to change in response to changing needs. Marvin Denton, 33568 Bloomberg Road, tax lot 900, spoke in opposition to the request. He said he owned the property adjacent to that proposed for the addition, and he noted that he had submitted a letter to the record. He said the letter outlined his concerns, primarily that allowing the expansion would have a negative impact on his home, which he said was quite close to the pro- posed business. Mr. Dodson spoke in rebuttal, saying he appreciated the concern but felt buffering would be adequate, if not better than that already existing. He said the shop facility would replace an uninhabitable duplex on the lot, which . would have to be removed anyway. No further testimony was offered, and Ms. Larson closed the public hearing on item B-21. Index No~ B-22 Hayden Bridge UGB Correction Mr. Gordon presented the staff report. He said the area shown as Low-Density Residential north of Hayden Bridge and outside the UGB was recommended for agricultural designation, and the southern portion would remain Low-Density Residential with the UGB extended to the river. Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment B-22. No testimony was offered, and the public hearing was closed. Index No. B-23 Awbrey-Meadowv1ewlndustr1al S1te Mr. Gordon presented the staff report, noting that MPC had been unable to resolve the issue. He said its two positions were outlined in MPC's Report volume 2, section V. The applicants had agreed at the Planning Commission hearing with the staff recommendation and had withdrawn the request for an amendment. He said applicants now were requesting that the tract be included in the Growth Alternative Study. Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment B-23. . MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 19 . Gordon Elliott, 1414 Polk Street, Eugene, spoke in favor of the amendment. No further testimony was offered, and Ms. Larson closed the public hearing on item B-23. Index No. B-24 Willow Creek Plan Boundary Change Mr. Gordon presented the staff report. Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment B-24. Hearing no requests to testify, Ms. Larson closed the public hearing. Mr. Gordon presented the staff report, noting that the reminder about excep- tions again applied. He said staff had noted that standards for exceptions differed in the Metro Plan and in the Rural Comprehensive Plan. He said staff had identified the four areas as those that might have been included as excep- tions under the original criteria used in the Metro Plan. Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendments 8-25.1, .2, .3, and .4. . No further testimony was offered, and Ms. Larson closed the public hearing on items B-25. Mr. Gordon presented the staff report. Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendments 8-26 #9, #19, #20, and #21. Buck Jones, 6022 Thurston Road, S rin field, spoke in favor of item 8-26 #19. re erre to map an to t e 2 1 Study, which he said should have been included in the first update. He also submitted a statement of August 6, 1985 recommending inclusion of the area in the UG8. He said he had seen no flooding in the 13 years he had lived in the area, adding that he agreed com- pletely with the map. He said he did not intend to build in the area, but he had received offers from people interested in buying the property. He said houses would eventually exist there, and it was not part of the flood plain. . MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 20 Ms. Larson asked whether the CH2M Hill study was available to the Planning . Conmissions. Mr. Gordon said it was not, but the working paper and staff recommendations in Vol. 1 had been based on that material. Mr. Jones asked how many people had testified at the hearings, and Mr. Gordon said he would provide that information to Mr. Jones. Mr. Simmons requested further clarification and a clearer map for the work session. Mr. Jones agreed to provide information to staff after the meeting. Rodney Meyers, 7598 Thurston Road, spoke in opposition to item 8-26 #21. He said he owned a piece of adjoining property with a back end of 287 feet. He said he had owned the property since 1969 or 1970, and he had noticed water around his shop three times in that period. He said Mr. Wasserman could not be present tonight, but his house was less than 100 feet from Thurston Road and had had water in the front yard. He also named another resident who had reported water in his front yard. He also said the scale of the map was off. . ~~Offered' and Ms. Larson closed the pUblic hearing on T': ... .. . .-t 1Ja I J 9 'fJ. m. (Recorded by Leslie Scales) LS: ky /2770P . MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 21 , ~ , , EUGENE, SPRINGFIELD, & LANE COUNTY ELECTED OFFICIALS JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN MID-PERIOD REVIEW PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENTS Springfield City Council Chambers Springfield City Hall 225 North 5th Street Springfield, Oregon Tuesday, December 3, 1985 7:00 p.m. Public Hearing on Text, Auxiliary Map and Diagram Amendments AGENDA ------ There is a staff information table outside the hearing chambers. Staff will be available to answer questions throughout tonight's hearing. Copies of background documents are available at the information table. There are sign-up cards and copies of the Public Hearing Guidelines available at the information table. Copies of the guidelines for conducting this public hearing are also available there. The purpose of this public hearing is to receive public testimony. No action is expected by any of the elected bodies tonight. Each elected body will have individual, subsequent meetings in December to deliberate and reach a decision on each item. - A. PUBLIC HEARING ON METROPOLITAN PLAN TEXT AND AUXILIARY MAP AMENDMENTS .. 1. Staff Presenta~~o~\ 2. Open Public Heari:1q on Text and Auxiliary Map Amendments 3. Public Testimony 4. Close Public Hearing on Text and Auxiliary Map Amendments B. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON METROPOLITAN PLAN DIAGRAM AMENDMENTS Each diagram amendment public hearing wHl follow the format described below: ".... 1- Staff Presentation 2. Open Public Hearing 3. Public Testimony 4. Close Public Hearing on Diagram Amendment PROPOSED DIAGRAM AMENDMENTS INDEX NO. ISSUE B-l-a Barger Belt Line Development Node B-1-b Royal-Danebo Floating Node B -l-c West Bethel-Danebo Floating Node B-1-d Laurel Hill Floating Node B-2 Highway 99 East Side Commercial B-3 West 11th North Side Commercial -- B-4 North Delta (Banfield) Commercial B-6 Booth-Kelly Mixed Use B-7 Washburne Historic District B-8 Springfield Millrace (inside UGB) ~. , r B-9 Coburg/County Farm Road Commercial B-10 Santa Clara Floating Node B-11 Irving Road Industrial Site B-12 Maxwell/River Road Commercial B-13 Green Hill Road Industrial B-14 Gateway Commercial (Boyles) B-15 North Gateway Commercial (Cockerline) B-16 County Shops B-17 Santa Clara UGB Expansion B-18 River Loop #1 Exception B-19 Merryman Road (Kokkeler Estates) Exception B-20 Barger Drive UGB Expansion - B-21 McVay Highway Industrial B-22 Hayden Bridge UGB Correction B-23 Awbrey-Meadow View I ndustrial Site B-24 Willow Creek Plan Boundary Change B-25.1 Awbrey Lane/Prairie Road Exception B-25.2 I rvington Road Exception B - 25.3 Bailey Hill Road Exception B - 25.4 Gimpl Hill Road Exception B-26, #9 Ayers Road UGB Contraction B-26, #19 Thurston Middle School Vicinity UGB Expansion B-26, #20-21 Thurston Road UGB Expansion Eugene City Councilors Springfield ~ Councilors -: Brian Oble, Mayor ""'..._.~- - - -~ - - - Joh n Lively, Mayor Ruth Bascom Linda Christensen Debra Eh rman John Kelly Richard Hansen Richard Gassman Freeman Holmer Richard Gorman Jeff Miller Chris Larson Roger Rutan Fred Simmons Emily Schue Cynth ia Wooten Lane County Commissioners Peter DeFazio, Chairperson John Ball Chuck Ivey Bill Rogers Jerry Rust - j :~ ?, -~' M E M 0 RAN DUM ~e\. November 25, 1985 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJ: METROPOLITAN PLAN MID-PERIOD REVIEW The elected officials of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County are scheduled to conduct a joint public hearing on the Metropolitan Plan Mid-Period Review on December 3 at 7:00 p.m. in the Springfield City Council Chamber. The fi rst portion of the meeting will consist of a public hearing on text and auxiliary map changes recommended by the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) and the local planning commissions. Recommendations forwarded by MPC are contained in MPC's Plan Review Report, Volume 2, Section 2. The th ree planning commissions support MPC's recomme n ded text and auxiliary map changes except as noted in the material enclosed entitled: Metro Plan Text Amendments. The second portion of the meeting will consist of individual public hearings on all proposed Metro Plan Diagram amendments MPC determined were appropriate for consideration during the Mid-Period Review. The diagram amendments are being processed in a quasi-judicial manner. Declarations of confl i ct of interest or ex parte contacts can be done either by completing one of the ~- forms supplied or by making a statement prior to the public hearing on the particular item. Recommendations forwarded by MPC regarding diagram amendments are consolidated with the recommendations of the three planning commissions in the material enclosed entitled: Metro Plan Diagram Amendments. Further information on each of the diagram amendments is contained in MPC's Plan Review Report, Volume 1. Enclosed under separate cover is a revised staff analysis for two of the diagram amendments. The first, MPC Index No. 8-15 North Gateway Commercial (Cockerline), was prepared to respond to the applicant's request to modify the plan di agram amendment being considered. The second, MPC Index No. 8-20 Barger Drive UGB Expansion, was prepared based on direction from the Eugene Planning Commission to incorporate recent information concerning the provision of sanitary sewer facilities in the area. Also enclosed are revised maps for MPC Index No.'s B-6 (indicates existing Heavy Industrial designations on the north and east side of the mill pond) and 8-8 (reflects a reduced area for Parks and Open Space to accurately refl ect the actual channel of the millrace and associated riparian vegetation). Also enclosed under separate cover is a copy of: 1) the draft minutes of the planning commission's joint public hearings held October 28 and November 5, and 2) all written testimony submi tted to the planning commissions as of November 5, 1985. At the public hearing, guidelines will be available for citizens to use who - wish to testify. A staff information table will also be set up outside the hearing chambers.