Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue February 28, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath Vice President; Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, members; Tom Coyle, ex officio mem- ber; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development De- partment; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Glen Potter, Fire and Emer- gency Services Department; Doug Harcleroad, Alex Gardner, Kent Howe, Faye Stewart, Bill Van Vactor, Teresa Wilson, Rob Rockstroh, Lane County; Terry Connolly, Charles Biggs, Lara Skinner, Dave Van Sorkle, Jim Seabury, Terry Froemming, guests. ABSENT: Anne Marie Levis, member. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. DELIBERATION/POSSIBLE ACTION: PUBLIC SAFETY SPECIAL DISTRICT METRO PLAN AMENDMENT Mr. Belcher moved, seconded by Mr. Hledik, to delete “including but not limited to” from the proposed language in the first sentence of Policy 15.f. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. II. DISCUSSION: KEY CODE AMENDMENTS Mr. Duncan moved, seconded by Ms. Colbath, to approve the Citizen In- volvement Program for Phase 2, Key Code Amendments to the Lane Use Code. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF 1 SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 1  A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission 2 SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 2  Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue February 28, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath Vice President; Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, members; Tom Coyle, ex officio mem- ber; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development De- partment; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Glen Potter, Fire and Emer- gency Services Department; Doug Harcleroad, Alex Gardner, Kent Howe, Faye Stewart, Bill Van Vactor, Teresa Wilson, Rob Rockstroh, Lane County; Terry Connolly, Charles Biggs, Lara Skinner, Dave Van Sorkle, Tim Seaberry, Terry Froemming, guests. ABSENT: Anne Marie Levis, member. Mr. Lawless convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission at 11:33 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Lawless introduced the item and explained the process for public comment. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eugene, expressed concern that the purpose statements did not meet the criteria for nodal development. Mr. Duncan arrived at 11:35 a.m. Ms. Muir reported that the City Council would conduct a work session on April 11, 2005 on the Chase Node. I. DELIIBERATION/POSSIBLE ACTION: PUBLIC SAFETY SPECIAL DISTRICT METRO PLAN AMENDMENT Ms. Colbath declared a potential conflict of interest as she was currently working under contract as a financial advisor with the City of Coburg. She added that she had read the minutes from previous meetings at which the topic was discussed. Ms. Muir reported that she had discussed Ms. Colbath’s potential conflict of interest with the City Attorney, who had ruled that Ms. Colbath could participate fully in the discussion and vote on the topic. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 1 Ms. Muir said that the role of the Planning Commission was to make recommendations on the criteria in the Metro Plan, noting that the proposed Metro Plan amendment had been initiated by Lane County. She added that staff replied heavily on Lane County for support in processing the request. Ms. Muir distributed a document entitled Revised Attachment A and Attachment B to the agenda packet. Ms. Muir introduced Kent Howe, Lane County Planning Director, who said he was here to answer any questions Planning Commissioners may have regarding the proposed Metro Plan Amendment. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Muir said that City of Eugene staff concurred with the recommendations developed by Lane County staff. Mr. Belcher observed this was a fundamental change in how special districts were used. Mr. Hledik noted Policy 15 had been crafted when circumstances were different, with separate fire and water districts, and the cities were logical providers of those services. He questioned if this amendment was really necessary, asking if an alternate way to address the issue had been considered. Mr. Lawless said this proposal provided a way to clarify service districts across the county which currently was unclear, adding that this provided a method to untangle Lane County services across multiple jurisdictions. Mr. Duncan said he was inclined to support the proposal but was bothered by the structure. Mr. Lawless said the proposal offered more clarity on the issue of single versus plural service districts, but expressed concern that the proposal would open the door for a flood of other requests. Ms. Colbath noted that in other jurisdictions, services such as libraries and sewers were commonly done on a county-wide basis. She said the Planning Commission may see more of this type of request as a land use issue rather than a budget issue in the future. Mr. Duncan asked if the City Attorney had reviewed the proposed amendment, noting that he wanted to see a narrow interpretation. Mr. Yeiter confirmed that the proposed amendment had been reviewed by the City Attorney. Mr. Coyle said that similar issues in many other states were handled outside of the land use process, adding this begged a bigger question, that being was there a need to focus on special districts. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 2 Mr. Belcher said the real question was not land use but fiscal issue, noting it was challenging to refrain from making the amendment too onerous. He asked if the proposed amendment would create one or more districts or if it was countywide. Mr. Howe replied that the amendment would create a single district that encompassed the whole county. At the suggestion of Mr. Belcher, the Commission unanimously agreed that the word “single” should be inserted in the first sentence of the policy amendment to make it clear that only one district were contemplated. Both Mr. Belcher and Ms. Colbath expressed concern about the language “including but not limited to” in Policy 15.f of the proposed amendment text. Mr. Howe said that other countywide districts could be created in the future, citing as an example, that the county could create a library district in the future. Mr. Yeiter added that the language in the Metro Plan may not preclude the county from providing services within the county but outside the Metro areas. Referring to the February 16, 2005 staff report from Mr. Howe, Mr. Yeiter reiterated that “most of those services are mandated by constitutional or statutory provisions that establish county authority to provide the service.” Mr. Duncan expressed concern on the Policy 15.f language “including but not limited to”, and wanted it to be clear to the City Council that the Planning Commission did its work. In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Howe said if a dispute arose between the City of Eugene and Lane County regarding service districts, the dispute would go to the Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC). Several commissioners expressed concern that this was being brought to the Planning Commis- sion as a land use issue. Ms. Muir stated that Mr. Van Vactor’s memorandum to the Lane County, City of Eugene and City of Springfield Planning Commissions, page I-10, in the agenda packet, outlined the Lane County’s reasoning in using the approach. Mr. Howe explained that Lane County would negotiate with each of the twelve cities involved for creation of additional special districts. He said the special districts would have governing bodies, but each city would have contracts with Lane County, noting that written agreements would provide the legal support for actions between the county and the cities. Mr. Belcher emphasized that it was important to include safeguards to allow the City of Eugene to control those services within the City boundaries. Mr. Belcher moved, seconded by Mr. Hledik, to delete or modify the phrase “including but not limited to” from the proposed language in the first sentence of Policy 15.f to narrow the scope of the district to just those MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 3  public safety services discussed during the hearing, those that the County was obligated to provide, and those that the County already provides. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. The Commission asked County staff to work on the appropriate language that would satisfy this motion by making the policy clear about the narrow scope of services covered in the new exception. The language would be provided to the elected officials. Mr. Belcher expressed concern that the proposed amendment created more than the Oregon Revised Statutes (O.R.S.) mandated services, and wondered how the roles of the cities and the county would be defined related to police patrol and arrest. Mr. Coyle said this presented a case for saying that everything would connect to land use, and that the costs incurred would be at the expense of other services the city strongly wanted to provide. Mr. Belcher stressed the importance of advising the City Council that the Planning Commission did not strongly support all of the issues identified by Lane County. Mr. Coyle left the meeting. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. Muir said a letter from the Planning Commis- sion would be sent to the City Council, adding that the issue had not yet been scheduled on the City Council calendar. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Howe said the proposed amendments would be considered by the Springfield Planning Commission on March 1, 2005 and by the Lane County Planning Commission on March 15, 2005. Ms. Colbath reiterated the Planning Commission’s contention that the proposed amendment was a land use issue only. The Planning Commission neither supported nor opposed creation of a taxing district. There was consensus to support a change offered by Mr. Belcher on Attachment B, Findings in Support, item six as follows: Goals of proposed change are to allow for a new financing vehicle without undermining the compact urban growth policies of the Metro Plan. Ms. Muir noted consensus of the Planning Commissioners on the remainder of the findings. Mr. Howe said he would convey the concerns of the Planning Commission to the Lane County Planning Commissioners. Mr. Belcher expressed appreciation to the Lane County staff for the hard work they put into drafting the proposed amendment language. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Hledik left at 12:40 p.m. II. DISCUSSION: KEY CODE AMENDMENTS Mr. Nystrom stated that the Planning Commission was acting as the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) for the Key Code Amendments process. Mr. Nystrom reviewed the process and identified the three key milestones: • Solicit amendments to be considered from the public, noting the staff list was completed. • Prioritizing the combined lists of the community and staff, noting that the resulting list will be too long to complete. • Consultant preparation of potential solutions and Planning Commission review of the recommendation. Mr. Coyle returned. Mr. Nystrom said the public involvement process would include a number of workshops, meetings, and public hearings that would likely run into the fall. Staff had identified the need to hire a consultant to serve as a project manager to perform the bulk of the work due to the sheer volume of work involved. The background of the consultants considered for the project manager would likely be land use consultants, architects, or other qualified individuals. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Ms. Muir said that the Planning Commission would see the entire list of proposed amendments. Ms. Muir added that staff would work with the consultant to establish screening criteria. Mr. Nystrom said the council buddy relationships would be very important during this process, and would be beneficial in getting informal feedback from council members. Mr. Coyle said that the level of discussion was lower than policy issues but higher than the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) process, in which there were line by line discussions. Mr. Nystrom said that the website would be updated to include code amendment information. Mr. Belcher said the proposal was a giant leap forward in the public process, and noted that use of the website would be important. He thanked staff for the efforts in completing the code amendments. Mr. Nystrom said the Planning Commission’s suggested organizations would be added to the interested parties list. Ms. Muir asked Planning Commission members to send names of additional interested parties to her. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 5  Mr. Duncan moved, seconded by Ms. Colbath, to approve the Citizen In- volvement Program for Phase 2, Key Code Amendments to the Lane Use Code. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Commission Ms. Colbath reported that she would share a book brought back from Washington, D.C. by the United Front lobbying group. B. Other Items from Staff Ms. Muir reported that fee increases were tentatively scheduled to go into effect on March 1, 2005. The increases reflected increasing cost recovery from 24 percent to 40 percent. Com- ments had been received from three people, two opposed to the fee increase, and one in favor of the action. Mr. Muir reported that State of Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) had upheld the minor housekeeping amendments that had been appealed by the Home Builders Association of Lane County. Ms. Muir said that the Planning Commission would be discussing Goal 5, buildable land supply issues, in the near future. Mr. Lawless questioned the timing of the role of the CIC in relation to the Parks planning process. Ms. Muir said that the CIC was dissolved in July 2004, as a result of city wide budget cuts. She added that the land swap discussion had been taking place for several years with the Parks and Open Space Board (POS). Mr. Yeiter said the role of the Planning Commission as a CIC was tied to land use decisions, noting that the original parks plan was not intended to be a land use decision. Mr. Lawless said it was not clear when the Planning Commission should get involved in a number of processes. He said it was important that the Planning Commission cover all of its bases, or that they cover no more than they have to. Mr. Coyle said only 20 percent of the projects that come into the Permit and Information Center for review and approval ever come about, making it challenging on deciding at what point the Planning Commission should become involved. Mr. Lawless stressed the need for conversations about CIC issues and the importance of the Planning Commission not engaging in projects that MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 6 never got done. Ms. Muir said she and Mr.Yeiter attended most of the POS meetings related to the POS plan, noting that it was not being done without public involvement. She added that POS staff had met with interested citizens to review the survey instrument that had been discussed at a previous Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Lawless adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:30 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2005\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc050228.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 7