HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 19727ORDINANCE No. 19?27
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER IV OF THE
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL
PLAN To STREAMLINE THE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS
AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
THE CITY 4F EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section i. Chapter IV of the Metropolitan Area General 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 may be amended
from time to time. Likewise, the Metropolitan Plan may
be augmented and implemented by more detailed refinement
plans and regulatory measures.
Findings,.
1. If the Metropolitan Area General Plan is to maintain
its effectiveness as a policy guide, it must be
adaptable to the changing needs and circumstances
of the community.
2. 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 pardons 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.
Goal«
Ensure that the Metropolitan Area General Plan is
responsive to the changing conditions, needs, and
attitudes of the community.
objectives.
1. Maintain a schedule for monitoring, reviewing, and
ordinance - 1
amending the Metropolitan Area General Plan sv it
will remain current and valid.
2. Maintain a current land use and parcel information
base for monitoring and updating the Metropolitan
Area General Plan.
3. Prepare refinement and functional plans that
supplement the Metropolitan Area General 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.
2. The geographic information data base shall be
maintained on a regular basis.
3. The governing bodies of the three metropolitan
jurisdictions may initiate an amendment to the
Metropolitan Plan at any time. Even though an
amendment may only affect one jurisdiction, it must
be referred to the other two jurisdictions for
comment.
4. To enact a Metropolitan Plan amendment, all
participating governing bodies must adapt an
identical version of the amendment.
5. The three metropolitan jurisdictions shall jointly
develop and adopt Metropolitan Plan amendment
application procedures and a fee schedule.
6. Citizen initiated Metropolitan Plan minor amendment
proposals may be submitted at any time. Minor
amendments are limited to changes to the
Metropolitan Plan Diagram.
7. Metropolitan Plan major amendment proposals may be
considered twice a year at predetermined times as
agreed to by all three governing bodies.
8. The planning commissions of participating
jurisdictions shall consider plan amendments and may
make recommendations to their respective governing
bodies.
9. When the governing bodies are unable to reach
Ordinance _ 2
consensus on a Metropolitan Plan amendment proposal,
that proposal shall be ref erred to the Metropolitan
Policy Committee for consideration and possible
recommendation back to the governing bodies.
l0. 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 or 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 2. The above Metropolitan Plan amendments control
over any other inconsistent textual provisions of the Metropolitan
Area General Plan.
Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid
or unconstitutional by a court of competent 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 4. The findings contained in the attached Exhibit A
are adopted in support of this Ordinance.
Passed by the City council this Approved by the Mayor this
29t day of October, 1990 29th day o Oct b r, 990
~i
City Reco er ayor
ordinance - 3
EXHIBIT A
Findings in Support of ordinance 1977
Amending Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan.
i. The plan amendment is consistent with applicable Statewide
Planning Goals.
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 planning process. Citizens have been involved
in all stages of the development of these proposed amendments.
The following summarizes the major citizen involvement
opportunities in the development of the 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 August of 1984, Chapter IV of the Metropolitan Area
General Plan was amended to provide for a semi-annual
plan amendment process. This process provided that all
citizen-initiated amendments, regardless of scope, could
be initiated twice each year.
2. In June of 1987, the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan was subject to the semi-annual plan
amendment process. During this amendment process,
proposed amendments to the Metropolitan Plan were subject
to public hearings before the Metropolitan Area Planning
Advisory Committee ~MAPAC~ and the planning commissions
and governing bodies of the three metropolitan governing
bodies. Dne of the proposed amendments concerned a
small-acreage, Plan Diagram change to property located
within the corporate limits of Eugene.
3. Following the conclusion of the semi-annual amendment
process, elected officials voiced concern over the number
of hearings required or a proposed amendment and the time
limitation upon the initiation of small--scale, citizen-
initiated amendments.
4. In october of 1988, the Metropolitan Policy Committee
~MPC~ directed metropolitan staff to draft changes to
Chapter IV of the Metropolitan Plan to streamline the
plan amendment process.
Exhibit A - 1
5. Proposed revisions to the plan amendment process were
developed by staff and reviewed by MAPAC and the three
metropolitan planning commissions during the spring and
summer of 1959. These meetings were noticed through
mailouts to interested parties and by news releases to
local newspapers.
6. on october 11, 1989, the Eugene City Council the
Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of
County Commissioners reviewed the proposed revisions to
the Metropolitan Plan amendment process at a j oint public
hearing. The elected officials reached consensus on
guidelines for the preparation of revisions to Chapter
IV of the Metropolitan Plan and implementing code
language at this public hearing. This public hearing was
noticed through mailings to interested parties and
through news releases to local newspapers.
7. on April 1G, 1990, the Joint Planning Commission
Committee ~JPCC~ reviewed and approved revisions to
Chapter IV of the Metropolitan Plan and implementing code
language based upon the octvber l1, 1989 consensus
guidelines. This meeting was noticed through mailings
to interested parties and by news releases through local
newspapers.
8. on May 24, 1990, the Eugene, Springfield and Lane County
planning commissions, at a joint public hearing,
considered and recommended approval of the proposed
revisions to Chapter IV of the Metropolitan Plan. The
three planning commissions considered and recommended
approval, with slight modifications, of the implementing
code language. Interested parties were notified of this
meeting, a display ad was placed in the Register Guard
newspaper 30 days prior to the public hearing, and a
legal advertisement of the public hearing was placed in
the Register Guard newspaper ten days prior to the public
hearing.
9. on October ~9, 1990, the Eugene City Council, the
Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of
County Commissioners considered the proposed revisions
to Chapter IV of the Metropolitan Plan and implementing
code language at a joint public hearing. Interested
parties were notified of this hearing, a display
advertisement of the public hearing was placed in the
Register Guard newspaper 30 days prior tv the hearing and
a legal advertisement of the public hearing was placed
in the Register Guard newspaper ten days prior to the
public hearing.
Exhibit A -- 2
10. The revisions to Chapter IV enhances citizen involvement
by allowing minor amendments to the Metropolitan Plan to
be initiated and processed at any time.
ii. The revisions to Chapter IV enhances citizen involvement
by allowing for the single-jurisdiction review and
approval of some minor plan amendments. Single-
jurisdiction review allows the review of a proposed plan
amendment to be expedited by avoiding the necessity of
scheduling joint hearings at the planning commission and
governing body level and the need for dispute resolution
actions, Single-jurisdiction review reduces the level
of participation by the other two jurisdictions, thereby
reducing costs that might otherwise be passed on to
citizens through application fees.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning.
Goal 2 states that "Cpportunities shall be provided for review
and comment by citizens and affected governmental units during
preparation, review and revision on plans and implementation
ordinances . " Goal 2 further provides that all land use plans
and implementation ordinances shall be reviewed on a periodic
cycle in accordance with a schedule set forth in the plan.
1. The proposed revisions to Chapter IV set out the
framework whereby citizens may initiate major and minor
amendments to the Metropolitan Plan.
2. Policy No. 10 of the revised Chapter IV provides for a
scheduled review of the Metropolitan Plan that shall
occur no less frequently than the state-required periodic
review of the plan.
Z. The plan amendment is consistent with the fundamental
principles and applicable policies of the Metro Plan.
Fundamental Principle 1, that provides that the Plan is a
long-range policy document which serves as a framework for
more detailed refinement plans, is the only fundamental
principle applicable to draft revised Chapter IV. The draft
revised Chapter IV is consistent with Fundamental Principle
1 in the following particulars;
1. Findings 3 and 4 recognize that refinements to the
Metropolitan Plan are necessary and augment and assist
in the implementation of the Metropolitan Plan.
2. It is an objective of the draft revised Chapter IV
~Cbjective 3~ that refinement plans be prepared to
supplement the Metropolitan Plan.
Exhibit A - 3
3, Policies 11, 12 and 13 of the draft revised Chapter IV
recognize that the Metropolitan Plan may be updated
through refinement studies, that all refinement and
functional plans be consistent with the Metropolitan Plan
and that refinement plans shall be referred to the other
two jurisdictions far review.
3. The plan amendment is found to address one or more of the
following:
1. An error in the publication of the plan; or
2. Circumstances have changes in a substantial manner that
was not anticipated in the plan; or
3. Incorporation into the plans following acknowledgment
of newly inventoried material which relates to a
Statewide Goal; or
4. A change in public policy.
The amendments proposed by the draft revised Chapter IV
reflect a change in public policy. The new policy calls for
streamlining the Metropolitan Plan amendment process to
shorten the review time of some amendments and to lessen
expenses to participating citizens and governments.
exhibit A - 4