City of McMinnville may reject 1101 proposal
|
If their indications are followed up on, it’s possible the Board of Mayor and Aldermen that meets Monday won’t ratify the proposal set forth by the Coordinating Committee more than two weeks ago, with more than one city official expressly citing too little projection for urban growth possibilities for the next 20 years.
Some said they were amenable to a proposed change after the Coordinating Committee approved a county-wide plan April 25, but expressed dissatisfaction with how other urban growth boundaries are set up, particularly in areas north and south of town.
Alderman Patti Nunley, who brought up the issue along with Alderman and Planning Commission member Rickey Jones, said officials were encouraged in their initial planning to scale back urban growth boundaries.
In the north, the city currently provides water and sewer services to the Rolling Hills area located outside city limits, but that area is not reflected in McMinnville’s urban growth boundary, they noted. In the south, officials hope a “southern bypass” will someday be located there, they also said.
Nunley told Planning Commission members disagreement may lead to either mediation or arbitration. “We’ve all known that for over a year now. But my point is, when we go to arbitration,” she said of the size of the urban growth boundary, “we’re cutting our own foot off before we ever get to arbitration. We’re just going in there saying, ‘We didn’t get as much as we needed, now cut us off a little bit more.'”
County Executive Carol Hamblen said the revelation about the size of McMinnville’s northern and southern urban growth boundaries is news to her and noted the city’s state planning assistance officer, Joe Barrett, would have included it in the plan.
“If they relayed it to him that it should have been a bigger area, we weren’t aware of that,” Hamblen said Wednesday.
Nunley admitted addressing the perimeter areas never made it to the coordinating committee because some city officials were relatively new to the 1101 process when the area was initially discussed, but said now that she understands the issues better, it is imperative city leaders look at those boundary lines.
The new objections would almost appear to overshadow a major sticking point – a contested area located between McMinnville and Morrison – but there is a discrepancy with how that situation was handled as well.
After Tuesday, officials said there was a miscommunication between the Coordinating Committee that approved a county-wide plan on April 25 and Barrett, who prepared a map of the committee’s proposed boundaries.
Barrett’s original map listed an area located between the current city limits and Todd Lane (the edge of Morrison’s urban growth boundary) as a planned growth area.
But officials said what’s known as Area 4 – located between city limits and Gillespie Road – was supposed to be included in the original map as an urban growth boundary for McMinnville.
“That was the understanding all along,” County Executive Carol Hamblen said of inclusion of Area 4. “That was just a miscommunication and we got that straightened out.”
Barrett said there was no misunderstanding, but added he was asked to change the plan to include Area 4 as McMinnville’s urban growth boundary about three weeks after the Coordinating Committee approved the growth boundaries on April 25.
That map was presented to Planning Commission members Tuesday as a “compromise” proposal.