Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue November 8, 2005 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; John Lawless, Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, members; Steve Nystrom, Alissa Hansen, Denny Braud, Planning and Development Department staff; Carolyn Weiss, Johnny Medlin, Public Works Department staff; Kathryn Brotherton, City Attorney; ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio member. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. PUBLIC HEARING/PLANNING COMISSION DELIBERATION/POSSIBLE ACTIONON AN IMPROVED ALLEY VACATION REQUEST City of Eugene Urban Renewal Agency (VRI 04-1) Request: The Planning Commission will consider the request for the vacation of an improved alley and make a recommendation to the Eugene City Council. The vacation request will be heard before the City Council in a separate pub- lic hearing following action by the Planning Commission. Location: Southern half of the north/south alley between Olive and Charnelton Streets, and Tenth Avenue and Broadway, east of the former Sears building. Property: Assessor’s Map 17-03-31-13, adjacent to Tax Lots 5100, 5200, 5300, 6600 Applicant: City of Eugene Community Development Division Lead Staff: Alissa. Hansen, Senior Planner (541)682-5508 E-mail: alissa.h.hansen@ci.eugene.or.us Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Hudspeth, moved to recommend that the City Council ap- prove the alley vacation request. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 8, 2005 Page 1 Public Hearing II. PC DELIBERATION/ACTION: PARKS AND RECREATION OPEN SPACE (POS) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Lead Staff: Carolyn Weiss, Landscape Architect (541)682-4914 E-mail: carolyn.j.weiss@ci.eugene.or.us Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to recommend revision of the language in the staff response to Attachment A, Question 5, to pro- vide more specific language regarding the City of Eugene’s authority through adoption of the PROS Comprehensive Plan. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to recommend that revision of the language in the staff response to Attachment A, Question 7, to use the terminology of the Rivers to Ridges document of “voluntary partici- pation” rather than “willing sellers.” The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Colbath, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to recommend that lands owned by the BLM and purchased with Land and Conservation funding be included in the inventory of park lands. The motion passed, 5:2, Commissioners Hudspeth and Carroll voting in opposition. Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Hudspeth, moved to include a discussion of other parks, open space and recreation resources that exist within the community, but are not reflected in the PROS inventory in the PROS Comprehensive Plan document. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved to recommend incorporat- ing proposed diagrams in PROS Comprehensive Plan. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Hudspeth, moved to recommend to the City Council that any changes in the PROS Comprehensive Plan would required a public hearing. Mr. Belcher withdrew the motion. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Hudspeth, moved to forward a separate communication to the City Council that the Council consider in their re- view of the PROS Comprehensive Plan that any changes in the PROS Comprehensive Plan project list include a public hearing. The motion passed, 5:2, Commissioners Hudspeth and Carroll voting in opposition. Ms. Colbath, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to recommend to the City Council that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on land use issues related to comprehensive planning. The motion failed, 3:4, Commissioners Belcher, Carroll, Duncan, and Lawless voting in opposi- tion. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 8, 2005 Page 2 Public Hearing  Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to recommend to the City Council the need to have a balanced, comprehensive look at all of the land use demands. Ms. Colbath offered a friendly amendment to add “within the parameters of growth management policies” at the end of the sentence. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to split the motion: for- ward a separate communication recommending that the City Council ac- knowledge the synergistic effect between the PROS Comprehensive Plan and other planning documents; and to recommend that the PROS Plan include a discussion to consider the plans in totality, in balancing growth management policies. Ms. Colbath concurred with the second portion of the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to forward to the City Council an additional communication that would acknowledge the poten- tial impact and lack of available land on other land uses in the urban area. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Hudspeth, moved to recommend adoption of the PROS Comprehensive Plan to the City Council as modified, with the addition of a general statement that acknowledged that the compre- hensive plan does not impact buildable lands, but future action to acqui- sition projects may have an impact. The motion passed, 4:2, Commis- sioners Duncan and Hledik voting in opposition. Mr. Lawless, seconded by Ms. Colbath, moved to forward a communica- tion to the City Council that the Council consider in their review of the PROS Comprehensive Plan acknowledgement that the plan did not have a direct impact on buildable lands, while considering future action to ac- quire park land may have an impact on buildable lands. The motion passed unanimously 6:0. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 8, 2005 Page 3 Public Hearing  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue November 8, 2005 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; John Lawless, Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, members; Steve Nystrom, Alissa Hansen, Denny Braud, Planning and Development Department staff; Carolyn Weiss, Johnny Medlin, Public Works Department staff; Kathryn Brotherton, City Attorney; ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio member. Ms. Colbath convened the meeting at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. I. PUBLIC HEARING/PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON IMPROVED ALLEY VACATION REQUEST Ms. Colbath explained that the purpose of the meeting was to conduct a public hearing of the Eugene Planning Commission, deliberate and make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed alley vacation request. She explained the process for the public hearing. Alissa Hansen offered the staff report. BACKGROUND Ms. Hansen said the Urban Renewal Agency (URA) of the City of Eugene was requesting approval for the vacation of an improved alley. The property affected by this proposed action is the south half of the north/south alley between Olive and Charnelton Streets, and Tenth Avenue and Broadway, on the east side of the former Sears building. The 14-feet by 160-feet alley (2240 square feet in total area) is improved with paving. Requests for the vacation of public streets and alleys are considered in accordance with sections 9.8700- 9.8725 of the Eugene Code and Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 271.080 – 271.230. Pursuant to the applicable provisions of ORS, only City Council approval was required for right-of-way vacations, which historically was how such requests had been handled. As a result of the land use code update, right-of- way vacations were now processed as a Type IV application. According to the Type IV application procedures of EC 9.7400 – 9.7455, the Planning Commission was required to conduct a public hearing to consider the application, and make a recommendation, based on the required approval criteria, to the City Council to approve, approve with modifications, or deny the application. Staff noted that the minor land MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 8, 2005 Page 1 Public Hearing use code amendments that were currently before City Council included an amendment to align the process for right-of-way vacations with the applicable ORS and require City Council approval only. If the request was approved by the City Council, the alley would revert to private ownership and would be attached to the abutting properties in equal portions. Abutting property owners are the URA that owns Tax Lots 6600 and 5300, and Diamond Parking, that owns Tax Lots 5100 and 5200. The vacation request will be heard before the City Council in a separate public hearing, scheduled for November 14, 2005, following action by the Planning Commission Ms. Hansen described the public hearing notice process that had been used, and noted that no respondes to the public notice had been received by the Planning Division. CONSENT OF ABUTTING AND AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS Ms. Hansen explained that in accordance with ORS 271.080, the URA had provided evidence of consent to the alley vacation from all abutting property owners and from property owners of at least two-thirds of the property within the affected area. As noted above, the URA owned two of the four properties abutting the alley right-of-way (Tax Lots 6600 and 5300) and Diamond Parking owned the remaining abutting properties (Tax Lots 5100 and 5200). The materials submitted with the alley vacation application included consent forms signed by representatives from the URA and from Diamond Parking. The application materials also included consent forms signed by property owners of more than two-thirds of the area within the affected area. The affected area per ORS is an area that is 200 feet on either side of the alley and 400 feet at each end of the alley. APPLICABLE CRITIERA Ms. Hansen said the Planning Commission needed to address the relevant approval criteria from EC 9.8725 in making recommendations to the City Council on the proposed alley vacation: The City Council shall approve, or approve with conditions and reservations of easements, the vacation of improved public right-of-way, public ways acquired with public funds, or under- developed subdivision and partition plats, or portions thereof, including public right-of-way and improved public easements located therein, only if the council finds that approval of the vacation is in the public interest. The alley vacation request would facilitate the redevelopment of a vacant site with a six story office building that would bring 300 employees to the downtown core, was consistent with the policy direction contained in the Downtown Plan. The following specific policies from the Downtown Plan were relevant to this request and provided support that the request was in the interest of the public: • Build upon downtown’s role as the center for government, commerce, education and culture in the city and the region. • Downtown development shall support the urban qualities of density, vitality, liability and diver- sity to create a downtown, urban environment. • Actively pursue public/private development opportunities to achieve the vision for an active, vital, growing downtown. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 8, 2005 Page 2 Public Hearing  • Use downtown development tools and incentives to encourage development that provided charac- ter and density downtown. The URA of the City of Eugene, as the owner of the former Sears building property and adjacent 1/8 block parking lot (the “Sears Site”), has signed a Purchase and Sale Agreement with the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) under which the Sears Site will be sold to ORI for development of a new six-story office building. The proposed alley vacation was necessary for the construction of the new building, as it would allow ORI to use the site more effectively and efficiently. The City Council previously approved the terms of the sale, which included the URA’s commitment to vacating a portion of the north/south alley that was adjacent to the former Sears building. In addition to being consistent with the Downtown Plan policy direction, the requested alley vacation will not impede the future best use of any adjoining properties, and was thus in the public interest. Adjacent uses, which included a surface parking lot to the east and commercial/retail uses to the north, would continue to have alley access to and from the east/west alley between Olive and Charnelton Streets. Mr. Lawless opened the floor to questions from the Planning Commission. Mr. Hledik asked if the vacation line was through the middle of the alley, how the property line would be impacted. Mr. Nystrom replied that the C-3 zoning permitted a zero foot setback. In response to Mr. Hledik’s questions regarding fire access for the properties adjacent to the alley, Mr. Nystrom stated that building code issues would be addressed through the permit process. He added that these types of issues were always challenging, and there was no universal solution. Mr. Duncan inquired about the status of the use of the alley and a conditional use permit. Ms. Hansen replied that closure of the alley would occur only upon closure or rededication of the alley. Mr. Braud said a change in the status of the alley would be triggered by sale of the property to ORI. If the sale did not occur, any future sale would require that the process start over. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Braud stated that Diamond Parking would continue to own part of the alley. Mr. Belcher inquired about the transfer of approximately 2,400 square feet of property from public to private ownership. Mr. Nystrom stated that the transfer would occur at the point of the sales transaction, transferring the property from the Urban Renewal Agency (URA) to the purchaser. Noting no one present from the public who wished to speak on the alley vacation, Ms. Colbath closed the public hearing. Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Hudspeth, moved to recommend that the City Council ap- prove the alley vacation request. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. II. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION: PARKS AND RECREATION OPEN SPACE (PROS) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • Staff Presentation MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 8, 2005 Page 3 Public Hearing Mr. Nystrom introduced Carolyn Weiss, Landscape Architect with Public Works Parks and Open Space, and Johnny Medlin, Parks and Open Space Director. Ms. Weiss offered the staff report as provided in the agenda packet Agenda Item Summary. Ms. Weiss and Mr. Medlin reviewed the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) comments and questions from the October 10 and October 11, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Duncan inquired about condemnation of property outside of the city limits, citing the Eugene Airport as an example. Ms. Brotherton said the City was required to follow the zoning and land use regulations of the appropriate governing jurisdictions related to city-owned property outside of the city limits and the UGB. Responding to Ms. Colbath’s query about the Rivers to Ridges plan, Mr. Medlin stated the PROS Comprehensive Plan utilized the term “willing sellers”, while the Rivers to Ridges used the term “voluntary participation”. While each term referred to the concept of working with property owners who were voluntarily willing to sell their properties, the PROS Plan used the term “preferred approach”. The terms were not absolute guarantees against the governing jurisdiction exercising its power of condemna- tion. Mr. Belcher asked if a memorandum of agreement (MOA) could be developed if approval was desired from the governing jurisdiction for land that was acquired outside of the city limits for park construction. Ms. Weiss said a MOA would not override a land use regulation. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Weiss stated that when the parks and open space inventory was updated, one facet of the review was to look at lands that could be protected as public lands. She noted that other owners of public lands in Eugene included The Nature Conservancy (TNC), that owned 415 acres in the UGB, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), that owned 742 acres in the UGB. She added that TNC did not acquire land for public recreation use, while the BLM did provide some public access on its properties. Ms. Weiss said the current service level target was 18 acres of park land for every 1,000 residents. Under the PROS proposal, the target would increase to 20 acres of park land for every 1,000 residents. She said this target was developed based upon the inventory and a comprehensive analysis of other cities; of current trends; and on public involvement. Ms. Weiss stated that the service level target fulfilled the 20 year need; and it served as an aspirational plan document to guide staff in meeting future park needs of the community. Ms. Weiss said the service level target did not: identify specific properties or projects; change the existing uses of properties. Mr. Belcher inquired about the control of parcels and trails on TNC and BLM owned sites. Mr. Medlin said although the properties were not controlled by the City of Eugene, the City had the option of negotiating with BLM for access, and had partnered with BLM on use some properties, citing the West Eugene Wetlands as an example. He added that some of the BLM lands had been acquired with federal Land and Water Conservation funds. Responding to a question from Mr. Duncan regarding working with the BLM, Mr. Medlin said the City MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 8, 2005 Page 4 Public Hearing was faced with a dilemma. The National Recreation and Park Association had stopped publishing standards for community values related to acquisition and use of parks, thus eliminating the use of those standards as a benchmark for community success. Mr. Duncan noted the urban area was surrounded by rural areas with amenities, and asked what benefits were available outside the City of Eugene. Mr. Medlin said the public process had identified a wide area, from the coast to the mountains, as available recreation areas. Mr. Lawless stated that it seemed like a change in philosophy to exclude non-city owned sites within the city limits when accessing the available amount of park and recreation land. Mr. Medlin stated that acreage not within city ownership, such as that owned by the school districts, was excluded because there was no guarantee those properties would remain as park and recreation lands. As an example, he said the City purchased land from the Eugene 4-J School district when Willakenzie School closed several years ago, and the status of the Santa Clara School property was uncertain. Mr. Hledik stated that he had a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Hledik said the proposed PROS Comprehensive Plan was a good plan. He said what was important was the impact on the growth management goals. From the perspective of the Metro Plan, the PROS plan did not address the buildable lands inventory. He had a hard time justifying the plans findings against the growth management goals and suggested that the issue needed further study. Mr. Hledik questioned whether the PROS plan was a refinement to the Metro Plan. He added that he had a problem with the maps, and not including the parks diagram. Without those elements, he stated it was not a plan, and stated that the diagrams needed to be reinserted in the PROS plan. Ms. Weiss said that the comprehensive nature of the plan was with respect to parks, open space, recreation, facilities, and programming, it is proposed as a refinement plan to the Metro Plan, although it was primarily a visionary plans that created goals and strategies. Ms. Weiss said there was no legal requirement that Lane County co-adopt the PROS Comprehensive Plan, but that the County Board of Commissioners and the County Planning Commission had been given informational presentations and their input had been incorporated. Ms. Weiss said amendments to the PROS Project and Priority Plan would be a City Council decision which could occur during the Systems Development Charge (SDC) methodology update or budget processes. • Questions from Planning Commissioners Mr. Hledik inquired why the project list was not included as part of the PROS Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Medlin said there were practical and legal issues. The practical issue was that the 1989 Park and Recreation Plan was not implemented until the late 1990’s and 2000’s due to lack of funding. Funding was necessary to look for property and approach willing sellers. Mr. Nystrom said if this plan was not adopted, there were provisions in place to purchase land that became available. He added that the legal issues were addressed by the City of Eugene aspiring to acquire more land. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 8, 2005 Page 5 Public Hearing Mr. Belcher asked if it would be possible to ask Lane County to co-adopt the PROS plan. Mr. Nystrom said since the plan was aspirational the county would not be obligated. Mr. Belcher inquired about park land zoning issues. Mr. Nystrom replied that several zoning districts were allowed for parks, noting that one advantage of the PROS zoning designation was identification of development standards. Mr. Belcher asked if there were examples of where land could be converted to park use without a public hearing. Ms. Weiss said in cases where the applicable standards had been met for a neighborhood park in a residential area, a public hearing would not be needed. Ms. Colbath said the proposed plan needed to provide a balance between parks and development. She expressed concern that the maps and tables had been included in the past. She noted that they provided a guide to work through funding issues. In response to Mr. Duncan asking if the current process had been intended to entice people in the River Road/Santa Clara area to annex to the City of Eugene, noting that River Road parks were included in the inventory, Mr. Medlin said that was not the intent of the process. Mr. Duncan asked if River Road/Santa Clara was annexed, would the parks in the area be included in the annexation. Mr. Medlin replied it would depend upon a number of factors that had not been identified. Mr. Duncan expressed concern about the being able to sustain livability if significant numbers of households were added to the city through annexation. He said it was important to meet the 19 state planning goals. He said there was a need to provide balance, and he did not see that in the document. In response to Mr. Hledik’s concern about UGB issues, Ms. Weiss proposed rewriting the material to provide more specific language in Question 5 regarding regulatory authority; and Question 7 regarding distinguishing between the PROS term “willing sellers” and Rivers to Ridges term “voluntary partici- pants”. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to recommend revision of the language in the staff response to Attachment A, Question 5, to pro- vide more specific language regarding the City of Eugene’s authority through adoption of the PROS Comprehensive Plan. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to recommend that revision of the language in the staff response to Attachment A, Question 7, to use the terminology of the Rivers to Ridges document of “voluntary partici- pation” rather than “willing sellers.” MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 8, 2005 Page 6 Public Hearing In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Brotherton said she would research the proposed language to ensure there was sufficient information available regarding condemnation to enable the City Council to make an informed decision regarding condemnation outside the City’s limits. Mr. Belcher asked for specific language regarding what the City can and cannot do. Mr. Medlin said he did not object to use of the Rivers to Ridges language of “voluntary participants” if the language also included a statement that the term was not intended to restrict City Council authority to condemn within the limitations of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). Mr. Belcher proposed Mr. Medlin’s suggestion as a friendly amendment to the motion. Mr. Hledik and Mr. Duncan accepted the friendly amendment to the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Colbath, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to recommend that lands owned by the BLM and purchased with Land and Conservation funding be included in the inventory of park lands. Mr. Hudspeth asked if Ms. Colbath’s intent was to include BLM lands even if there were changes in the federal law. Ms. Colbath responded that her intent was to strike a balance, in hopes that the lands would be available in perpetuity for public use. Mr. Belcher said these public lands had a variety of uses and he wished to include them in the PROS plan. Mr. Duncan asked what the purpose of the document was, noting that one intent was to try to offer a 20- year vision for parks needs, while looking at property owned by the City as well as other jurisdictions, and private owners. He added a more thorough assessment was needed. Ms. Weiss asked if the motion was intended to address surplus issues through the year 2025, to which Ms. Colbath replied the intent was to address surplus issues for natural areas. Mr. Hudspeth disagreed with Mr. Belcher, stating that the City could not address lands that were not owned by the City. Mr. Belcher stated that the City of Eugene could change city-owned park lands to other uses. He would have a hard time supporting the motion if other properties and resources were not included. Ms. Colbath accepted language offered by Ms. Weiss that land for completion of the Ridgeline Trail, as well as more uplands was needed, as a friendly amendment. As the commissioner who seconded the motion, Mr. Belcher accepted the language. The motion passed, 5:2, Commissioners Hudspeth and Carroll voting in opposition. In response to concerns expressed by several commissioners, Mr. Nystrom suggested that any statement to the City Council needed to be a broad narrative statement. The Planning Commission agreed that MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 8, 2005 Page 7 Public Hearing public and private resources, including schools, golf courses, and private gymnasiums needed to be included in any assessment. Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Hudspeth, moved to include a discussion of other parks, open space and recreation resources that exist within the community, but are not reflected in the PROS inventory in the PROS Comprehensive Plan document. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved to recommend incorporat- ing proposed diagrams in PROS Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Carroll said he was particularly concerned because of the lack of graphic information in the PROS plan, which he considered to be an important tool for users. Ms. Brotherton cautioned commissioners to avoid including a fixed list of projects that could eventually conflict with the ultimate implementation strategy. Mr. Lawless noted that a legend for the maps that was representative of the aspirations of the plan but not site specific was needed. Mr. Belcher offered a friendly amendment to include removal of specific project text from the maps and replacement with more generic graphics on the map legends. Mr. Hledik and Mr. Carroll accepted Mr. Belcher’s friendly amendment. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Hudspeth, moved to recommend to the City Council that any changes in the PROS Comprehensive Plan would required a public hearing. Ms. Brotherton affirmed that changes to the PROS Comprehensive Plan would constitute a refinement plan amendment, and would be subject to those process requirements. Mr. Belcher withdrew the motion. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Hudspeth, moved to forward a separate communication to the City Council that the Council consider in their re- view of the PROS Comprehensive Plan that any changes in the PROS Comprehensive Plan project list include a public hearing. Mr. Hledik stated that the project list was similar to that included in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that was reviewed annually by the Planning Commission. Mr. Belcher expressed concern that the public had a right to know when spending decisions were being made and should be able to provide input through the public hearing process. The motion passed, 5:2, Commissioners Hudspeth and Carroll voting in opposition. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 8, 2005 Page 8 Public Hearing Mr. Duncan stated that sufficient opportunity for public input had not been offered on the project list for the existing parks plan related to specific costs. Mr. Hudspeth asked for direction from staff regarding the timeframe for expenditures identified in the proposed PROS Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Medlin said $192 million identified in the plan was aspirational for a 20-year period. Ms. Colbath said a public hearing would bring out much interest, and said the commission should not shy away from financial issues. Ms. Colbath, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to recommend to the City Council that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on land use issues related to comprehensive planning. The motion failed, 3:4, Commissioners Belcher, Carroll, Duncan, and Lawless voting in opposi- tion. Mr. Medlin said the majority of changes on the proposed project list would go through the CIP process, noting that while the City Council could make exceptions, staff could not. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to recommend to the City Council the need to have a balanced, comprehensive look at all of the land use demands. Ms. Colbath offered a friendly amendment to add “within the parameters of growth management policies” at the end of the sentence. Mr. Duncan said it was difficult to deal with the various plans in isolation, and recognized that it was important to recognize the interrelationship of city plans. Mr. Nystrom said the interrelationship was addressed in various ways, including having broad based recommendations and statements in the plans that described aspirations while recognizing the need for balance and the being able to weigh pertinent factors. Mr. Duncan said he wanted to connect the thread between the document and policy. He said although all 19 statewide planning goals needed to be adhered to, they were actually lived one at a time. Mr. Hledik said he would support the motion because it got to the heart of growth management issues, but found it difficult to support the findings as they had been rewritten because they state that the PROS Plan had no effect on buildable lands. He expressed doubt that the Lane Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) would accept the recommendation. Mr. Duncan said virtually everything impacts buildable lands and the Planning Commission needed guidance from the City Council on how to proceed. Mr. Hledik said the plan as prepared was excellent as a parks plan, and supported forwarding it to the City Council as such. It was time, however, to take a look at buildable lands outside of the PROS Comprehen- sive Plan. Mr. Belcher said a review of buildable lands would not take place for one or two years, and the city could MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 8, 2005 Page 9 Public Hearing not stand still during that time. While noting no one was totally comfortable with the findings, Ms. Colbath acknowledged that the commission’s hands were tied. The motion on the table got to the need to look at a balance in growth management policies while aspiring to look at the picture comprehensively. Mr. Belcher suggested including a statement in the document as well as forwarding a separate statement to the City Council acknowledging a synergistic effect between the PROS Comprehensive Plan and other planning documents. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to divide the question. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The Planning Commission voted to forward a communication to the City Council recommending that the City Council acknowledged the synergis- tic effect between the PROS Comprehensive Plan and other planning documents. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The Planning Commission voted to forward a communication to the City Council recommending that the City Council consider the plans in total- ity in balancing the growth management policies. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Addressing the document itself, Mr. Hledik stressed the need for a park specific plan. Mr. Duncan concurred, stating the document would be used for many years, and needed to acknowledge the need for balance in the UGB. He suggested such a statement could be part of a larger plan. Mr. Nystrom confirmed Mr. Belcher’s assertion that should the growth management plan be overturned, there would be no regulatory enforcement mechanism available. Mr. Hledik stated that rezoning often mixed up the buildable land ratio, noting when acreage was removed for parks, it had to be made up somewhere else. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to forward to the City Council, an additional communication that would acknowledge the po- tential impact and lack of available land on other land uses in the urban area. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Hudspeth left at 8:45 p.m.??? Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Hudspeth, moved to recommend adoption of the PROS Comprehensive Plan to the City Council as modified, with the addition of a general statement that acknowledged that the compre- hensive plan does not have authority to impact buildable lands, but future action to acquisition projects may have an impact. The motion passed, 4:2, Commissioners Duncan and Hledik voting in opposition. Mr. Lawless, seconded by Ms. Colbath, moved to forward a communica- MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 8, 2005 Page 10 Public Hearing  tion to the City Council that the Council consider in their review of the PROS Comprehensive Plan acknowledgement that the plan did not have a direct impact on buildable lands, while considering future action to ac- quire park land may have an impact on buildable lands. The motion passed unanimously 6:0. III. INFORMATION SHARE Commissioners Belcher, Colbath, Duncan and Hledik volunteered to work as a subcommittee to address City Council concerns. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to accept the minutes of November 8, 2005 as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Ms. Colbath introduced newly appointed Planning Commissioners Phillip Carroll. Ms. Colbath said the Planning Commission would select a new Vice President and review council buddy assignments after Thanksgiving. Ms. Colbath adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:33 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2005\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc051108.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 8, 2005 Page 11 Public Hearing