Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 19988gRDINANCE Nq.199SS AN gRDINANCE AMENDING THE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND REFINEMENTS SECTIgN qF CHAPTER IV qF THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METR4P4LITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN ~METRq PLANS Tq STREAMLINE AND CLARIFY THE PLAN AMENDMENT PRgCESS; AND ADUPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. THE CITY qF EUGENE DgES gRDAIN AS FgLLgWS; Section 1. Chapter IV of the Metropolitan Area General Plan Metro Plan is amended to read and provide: PLAN AMENDMENTS AND REFINEMENTS The Metropolitan Plan is the long-range public policy document which establishes the broad framework upon which Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County make coordinated land use decisions. while the Metropolitan Plan is the basic guiding land use policy document, it maybe amended from time to ,time. Likewise, the Metropolitan Plan may be augmented and implemented by mare detailed refinement laps and re ulato measures. p g rY Findin s. 1. If the Metropolitan Plan is to maintain its effectiveness as a policy guide, it must be adaptable to the changing needs and circumstances of the community. Z. Between Metropolitan Plan updates, changes to the Plan may occur through periodic review and amendments initiated by the governing bodies and citizens. 3. Refinements to the Metropolitan Plan are necessary in certain geographical portions of the community where there is a great deal of development pressure or for certain special purposes. 4: Refinement plans augment and assist in the implementation of the Metropolitan Plan. Ordinance -1 Goal. Ensure that the Metropolitan Plan is responsive to the .changing conditions needs, and attitudes of the community. gb'ectives. 1. Maintain a schedule for monitoring, reviewing, and amending the Metropolitan Plan sa it will remain current and valid. 2. Maintain a current land use and parcel information base far monitoring and updating the Metropolitan Plan. 3. Prepare refinement and functional plans that supplement the Metropolitan Plan. Policies. 1. A special review, and if appropriate, Metropolitan Plan amendment, shall be initiated if changes in the basic assumptions of the Plan occur. An example would be a change in public demand for certain housing types that in turn may affect the overall inventory of residential land. Z. The geographic information data base shall be maintained on a regular basis. 3. All amendments to the Metropolitan Plan shall be classified as a Type I or Type II amendment depending upon the specific changes sought by the initiator of the proposal. a. A Type I amendment shall include any change to the urban growth boundary or the jurisdictional boundary of the Plan; any change that requires a goal exception to be taken under statewide planning goal 2 that is not related to the UGB expansions and any amendment to the Plan text that is non-site specific. b. A Type II amendment shall include any change to the Plan diagram ar Plan text that is site specific and not otherwise a Type I category amendment. c. Adoption or amendment of some refinement plans, functional Ordinance - 2 plans or special area plans may, in same circumstances, be classified as Type I or Type II amendments. Amendments to the Metropolitan Plan that result from state mandated Periodic Review or Metropolitan Plan Up-dates also shall be classil~ed as Type I or Type II amendments depending upon the specific changes that would result from these actions. 4. Initiation of Metropolitan Plan amendments shall be as follows; a. A Type I amendment may be initiated at the discretion of any one of the three governing bodies or by any citizen who owns property that is subject of the proposed amendment. b. A Type II amendment may be initiated at the discretion of any one of the three governing bodies or by any citizen who owns property that is subject of the proposed amendment. c. only a governing body may initiate a refinement plan, a functional plan, a special area study or Periodic Review or Metropolitan Plan Up-date. d. The governing bodies of the three metropolitan jurisdictions may initiate an amendment to the Metropolitan Plan at any time. Citizen initiated Type II amendments maybe initiated at any time. 5. The approval process for Metropolitan Plan amendments, including the number of governing bodies who participate and the timeline for final action, will vary depending upon the classification of amendment and whether a determination is made that ~ the proposed amendment will have Regional Impact. a. All three governing bodies must approve non-site•specific text amendments; site specific diagram amendments that involve a UGB or Plan Boundary change that crosses the Willamette or McKenzie Rivers or that crosses over a ridge into a new basin; and, amendments that involve a goal exception not related to a UGB expansion. b. A site specific Type I Metropolitan Plan amendment that involves a UGB expansion or Plan Boundary change and a Type II Metropolitan Plan amendment between the city limits and Plan Boundary, must be approved by the home city and Lane County Springfield is the home city for amendments east of I-5, ordinance - 3 excluding Glenwood, and Eugene is the home city far amendments west of I-5 and within Glenwood}. The non-home city will be sent a referral of the proposed amendment and, based upon a determination that the proposal will have Regional Impact, may participate in the decision. Unless the non-home city makes affirmative findings of Regional Impact, the non-home city will not participate in the decision. c. An amendment will, be considered to have Regional Impact if: (1} It will require an amendment to a jointly adopted functional plan ~TransPlan, PFP, etc.} in order to provide the subject property with an adequate level of urban services; or ~2} It has a demonstrable impact on the water, storm drainage, sanitary sewer or transportation facilities of the non-home city; or ~3} It affects the buildable land inventory by significantly adding to LDR, CI, LMI or HI designations or significantly reducing the MDR, HDR or CC designations. d. A jurisdiction may amend a plan designation without causing Regional Impact when this action is taken ta: compensate for reductions in buildable land caused by protection of newly discovered natural resources within its awn jurisdiction; or, accommodate the contiguous expansion of an existing business with a site specific requirement. Decisions on all Type II amendments within city limits shall be the sole responsibility of the home city. 6. Public hearings by the governing bodies for Metropolitan Plan amendments requiring participation from one or two jurisdictions shall be held within 120 days of the initiation date. Metropolitan Plan amendments that require a final decision from all three governing bodies shall be concluded within 1S4 days of the initiation date. when more than one jurisdiction participates in the decision, the planning commissions of the participating jurisdictions shall conduct a joint public hearing and forward that record and their recommendations to their respective elected official. The elected officials also shall conduct a joint public hearing prior to making a final decision. The time frames prescribed in connection with Type II Metropolitan Plan Grdinance - 4 amendment processes can be waived if the applicant agrees to the waiver. 7, If all participating jurisdictions reach a consensus to approve a proposed amendment, substantively identical ordinances effecting the changes shall be adopted. Where there is a consensus to deny a proposed amendment, it may not be re-initiated, except by one of the three governing bodies, for one year. Amendments for which there is no consensus shall be referred to MPC for additional study, conflict resolution and recommendation back to the governing bodies. S, Adapted or denied plan amendments maybe appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals or the Department of Land Conservation and Development according to applicable state law. 9. The three metropolitan jurisdictions shall jointly develop and adopt Metropolitan Plan amendment application procedures and a fee schedule. 14. Metropolitan Plan updates shall be initiated no less frequently than during the state-required periodic review of the Metropolitan Plan, although the governing bodies may initiate an update of the Metropolitan Plan at any time. 11. In addition to the update of the Metropolitan Plan, refinement studies may be undertaken for individual geographical areas and special purpose ar functional elements, as determined appropriate by each governing body. 12. All refinement and functional plans must be consistent with the Metropolitan Plan, and should inconsistencies occur, the Metropolitan Plan is the prevailing policy document. 13. Refinement plans developed by one jurisdiction shall be referred to the other two jurisdictions for their review. Either of the two referral jurisdictions may determine that an amendment to the Metropolitan Plan is required. 14. Local implementing ordinances shall provide a process for zoning lands in conformance with the Metropolitan Plan. Section Z, If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is far any reason held invalid or unconstitutional b a court of cony etent Y P Ordinance - 5 jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. Section 3. The findings contained in the attached Exhibit A are adopted in support of this Ordinance. Section 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Eugene Charter and the Eugene Code, 1971, this ordinance shall not become effective until identical provisions are adapted by the City of Springfield and Lane County. Passed by the City Council this 9th ay of .November, 1994 ~..._ // City Reco er Approved by the Mayor this 9th day of November, 1994 ~~ Mayor Ordinance - 6 EXHIBIT A Findings in Support of Grdinanee No. 19985 Amending the Plan Amendments and Refinements Section of Chapter N of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. Section 9.1282} of the Eugene Code, 1971 provides that the following criteria shall be applied by the City Council in approving or denying a plan amendment a lication or ... PP m~t~ation: 1. The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. The following are the applicable Statewide Planning Goals: Goal 1-Citizen Involvement. Goal 1 is intended to ensure that citizens are involved in all stages of the lannin .. P g process. C~t~zens have been involved ~n all stages of the development of this amendment. The following summarizes the major citizen involvement opportunities in the development of the proposed revisions to Chapter IV of the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and demonstrates how the revisions enhance citizen-initiated amendments to the Plan: 1. In Gctober of 1988, the Metropolitan Policy Committee ~MPC} directed the metropolitan staff to draft changes to Chapter IV of the Metropolitan Plan to streamline the plan amendment process. Z. Changes to Chapter IV of the Metropolitan Plan were developed b . Y metropolitan staff and reviewed and approved by the Joint Planning Commission Committee ~JPCC} and the three metropolitan plannin g commissions and approved by the three governing bodies in 1990. ~3. In March of 1992, the MPC directed that metropolitan staff draft amendments to the Metropolitan Plan text that would further simplify and streamline the amendment process to the Plan. 4. ~ The Joint Planning Commission Committee reviewed the proposed revisions to Chapter IV of the Metropolitan Plan on May 18, 1992. Exhibit A -1 5. The proposed revisions tv Chapter 1V were reviewed by the three metropolitan planning commissions at a joint hearing an September 29,1992. G. 1n February 1993, the elected officials of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County held another joint public hearing an revisions to the Metro Plan amendment process. an March 1, 1993, fallowing the joint public hearing by the elected officials of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County, the Eugene City Council adopted revisions to the Metro Plan amendment process, The Lane County Board of Commissioners also adopted the amendments. The Springfield City Council rejected the proposed revisions and submitted an alternative amendment process for consideration. As a result, the item was forwarded to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC} far conflict resolution. 7. In January 1994, MPC forwarded three options for completing the conflict resolution process to the elected officials. The City Council was polled and a majority favored incorporating the issue into Periodic Review. As refined by MPC, this option included the establishment of a special committee of representatives from each jurisdiction to prepare a consensus recommendation to the elected officials. S. The City Council approved this approach in April 1994 and Councilors Boles and Nathanson represented Eugene on the committee. The Resolution Committee was chaired by Councilor Boles, with staff support from the Lane Council of Governments and the planning directors. The Committee met during June 1994 and completed a recommendation at their June 28, 1994 meeting. 9. As recommended by the Resolution Group, the amendment process distinguishes between Type I amendments, which are non-site specific text amendments, UGB1Plan Boundary changes or other goal exceptions; and Type 1I amendments, which include plan diagram and site specific text amendments. 14. Under Type 1 amendments, adoption by all three jurisdictions is required for any non-site specific text amendment and for any UGB ar Plan Boundary change crossing the Willamette ar McKenzie River or crossing over a ridge into a new basin, or involving a goal exception not related to a UGB expansion. For other Type I amendments, the amendment will be reviewed against a set of criteria to determine if it has regional impact. If the City Council of the non-home city resolves that the amendment has regional impact, adoption by all three jurisdictions is required; if not, only the Name cifiy and county must adopt the amendment. Exhibit A - 2 11. Under Type II amendments proposed amendments between the city limits and the plan boundary will also be reviewed to determine if it has regional impact. If the City Council of the non-home city resolves that the amendment has regional impact, adoption by all three jurisdictions is required; if not, only the home city and county must adopt the amendment. Inside the corporate limits of a city, the decision is made by the city. The city provides official notice of the amendment to the other city and the counfiy and the opportunity to participate as a party to the hearing. 12. Gn July 21, 1994, the Metropolitan Policy Committee unanimously recommended that the recommendations of the Resolution Group be approved by the respective governing bodies. Following review of final Metro Plan text and code language by members of the Resolution Group, the item was scheduled for action by the governing bodies. Goal 2 ~ Land Use Planning. Goal 2 states that "opportunities shall be provided for review and comment by citizens and affected governmental units during preparation, review and revision on plans and implementation ordinances." Goa12 further provides that all land use plans and implementation ordinances shall be reviewed on a periodic cycle in accord with a schedule set forth in the plan. 1. The proposed revisions to Chapter IV distinguish between Type I amendments, which are non-site specific text amendments, UGB/Plan boundary changes or other goal exceptions; and Type II amendments, which include Plan Diagram and site specific text amendments. The revisions clarify the framework whereby citizens may initiate amendments to the Metropolitan Plan. 2. Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metropolitan Plan internally inconsistent. The proposed revisions to Chapter IV distinguish between Type I and Type II amendments and clarify in what instances citizens may initiate amendments to the Metro Plan and in what instances the separate jurisdictions may or must participate in a Metro Plan amendment. 3, The amendment is not a plan update amendment, unless the amendment has been initiated by the governing bodies of the City of Eugene, City of Springfield, and Lane County. In determining whether a plan amendment is a plan update amendment, Exhibit A - 3 the City Council is not bound by the determination of the punning director or Metropolitan Policy Committee. Section 9.415 of the Eugene Code, 1971 currently defines a Plan Update Amendment as "Any change to the Metropolitan Plan which ~1} changes the urban growth boundary or the jurisdictional boundary of the Plan; ~Z} requires a goal exception to be taken under statewide planning goal Z; ~3} amends a fundamental principle, metropolitan goal or policy set out in Chapter II of the Plan; or ~4} requires a substantial diversion of budgeted planning resources from the approved work programs of affected city departments. That definition will be amended to reflect the Type I and Type II amendments referenced in Section Z above. The proposed amendment does not change the urban growth boundary or the jurisdictional boundary of the Metropolitan Plan. The changes are restricted to the Plan amendments and refinements section of Chapter IV and do not require an exception to statewide planning goal 2 nor do they amend a fundamental principle, metropolitan goal or policy set out in Chapter II of the Plan. The proposed changes are being processed within the existing budgets of the planning departments of the three metropolitan jurisdictions and within the scope of intergovernmental agreement related to the on-going maintenance, monitoring, review and amendment to the Metropolitan Area General Plan entered into by the three metropolitan jurisdictions and the Lane Council of Governments. EXhlblt A - 4