Planning Commission

MINUTES Joint Meeting Lane County Planning Commission Eugene Planning Commission Springfield Planning Commission Harris Hall—125 East 8th Avenue Eugene, Oregon July 19, 2011 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Lane County Planning Commissioners Tony McCown, Chair; John Sullivan, Vice Chair; Lisa Arkin, George Goldstein, Nancy Nichols, Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki, Ryan Sisson; Kent Howe, Kier Miller, Deanna Wright, Stephen Vorhes, Lane County staff. Eugene Planning Commissioners Jeff Mills, Chair; Jon Belcher, Heidi Beierle, Randy Hledik, Bill Randall, Lisa Warnes; Lisa Gardner, Alissa Hansen, City of Eugene staff. Springfield Planning Commissioners Johnny Kirschenmann, Chair; Frank Cross, Vice Chair; Denise Bean, Bob Brew, Greg James, Steve Moe, Stacey Salladay; Greg Mott, Steve Hopkins, Mary Bridget Smith, City of Springfield staff. ABSENT: Robert Noble, Dennis Sandow, Lane County Planning Commissioners; Rick Duncan, Eugene Planning Commissioner Mr. McCown convened the Lane County Planning Commission (LCPC) at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Mills convened the Eugene Planning Commission (EPC) at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Kirschenmann convened the Springfield Planning Commission (EPC) at 6:00 p.m. Those present introduced themselves. A. WORK SESSION Lane County is proposing amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP) for the Metro Plan area east of Interstate 5 (I-5). These amendments include: 1. ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281—In the matter of amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan by reducing the total land area within the Metro Plan east of Interstate 5 (I-5) and adopting a new Metro Plan boundary that is coterminous with the City of Springfield’s urban growth boundary (UGB) and adopting savings and severability clauses. MINUTES—Joint Planning Commissions July 19, 2011 Page 1 Lane County, City of Eugene, City of Springfield Work Session and Public Hearing Mr. Miller provided the staff report and a PowerPoint presentation entitled Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan General Plan—Boundary Adjustments—Phase 1—Joint Planning Commission Work Session—July 19, 2011. He distributed a handout entitled Supplemental Memorandum—Input from Springfield Utility Board regarding the proposed Metro Plan boundary adjustment. He acknowledged an error on the date of the staff report, noting commissioners should have received the report prior to July 15, 2011. He directed commissioners to page 3, paragraph 2, which should read: 1990’s: Controversial land use proceedings including the Blue Water Boats and the Eugene Delta Sand and Gravel applications create tensions among the Metro Plan partners concerning jurisdictional autonomy. Mr. Miller explained the purpose of the work session was to provide commissioners with the necessary background on the proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and RCP. Lane County had initiated a Type 1 amendment to the Metro Plan that would change the Metro Plan diagram and boundary maps to modify the Metro Plan boundary east of I-5 so that the resultant boundary was coterminous with the parcel specific UGB that had been developed by the City of Springfield. Additionally, Lane County would adopt the parcel specific UGB recently approved by the Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of County Commissioners (BCC). In addition to this boundary amendment, a series of related amendments to the Lane County RCP were proposed. The amendments would: • Adopt the City of Springfield’s parcel specific boundary location on official Lane County RCP maps to comply with OAR 660-024-0020(2). • Apply correctly corresponding RCP designations to lands previously designated under the Metro Plan. • Update the rural residential zoning of properties removed from the Metro Plan to maintain consistency with residential zoning regulations applied to lands within the RCP. • Amend RCP policies to apply existing Goal 5 Metro Plan Policies to Goal 5 resources removed from the Metro Plan and amend Lane Code 16.253 (Riparian Regulations to maintain existing safe harbor riparian setback regulations to lands removed from the Metro Plan.) Mr. Miller explained staff was directed to undertake the boundary adjustment work in two phases. Phase 1, which was the subject of this amendment, would adjust Metro Plan boundary adjacent to the City of Springfield’s UGB. Phase 2 would focus on the Metro Plan boundary west of I-5, adjacent to the City of Eugene’s UGB. He noted the final scope of the Phase 2 process had not yet been established and it was likely that the Phase 2 boundary amendments may leave portions of rural Lane County (i.e., the Eugene Airport property or others areas) within the Metro Plan if those areas were not first included in a future UGB expansion. Phase 2 was not part of this amendment and would be subject to a separate public process. In response to a question from Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki, Mr. Miller said it made sense to move forward with expanding the UGB since the City of Springfield had developed a parcel specific boundary. Ms. Wright said there were five areas of rural residential zone lands related to this item which consisted of approximately 80 properties. The zone change request was for Lane Code (LC) 16.231, rural residential zone to LC 16.290, rural residential zone. The existing Metro Plan area zoning contained an outdated version of Rural Residential regulations and today’s standards of the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR). The change was necessary to gain consistency with Goal 14, Rural Residential, also known as the 1994 Community Rule Change. Goal 14 required jurisdictions to come into compliance with the rule when they amended plan provisions that applied to rural residential zoned lands. The proposed Metro Plan amendment presented the appropriate time to proceed with this action. MINUTES—Joint Planning Commissions July 19, 2011 Page 2 Lane County, City of Eugene, City of Springfield Work Session and Public Hearing Ms. Wright understood mobile home parks would be allowed to continue under the current residential regulations which allowed repair, maintenance and replacement of existing uses. She added under the rural residential zone proposal, raising and harvesting of crops and feeding, breeding and management of livestock would be allowed. Mr. Miller said the RCP language would be amended as follows: • Amend the official Lane County Rural Comprehensive Zone and Plan maps to delineate the City of Springfield’s parcel specific UGB boundary location. • Apply correctly corresponding RCP plan designations to lands previously designated under the Metro Plan. • Update to the rural residential zoning of properties removed from the Metro Plan to maintain consistency with residential zoning regulations applied to lands within the RCP. • Amend the RCP Goal 5 policies and LC 15.253. In response to a question from Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki related to future litigation around varying setbacks, Mr. Vorhes asserted anybody could litigate, but whether they would succeed was questionable since those differences currently existed between properties inside the Metro Plan boundary now. The safe harbor option was available to the County if it chose to move in that direction. Mr. Miller said 2,600 notices were sent to affected parcels that would be impacted by the Phase 1 amendments, a public workshop was held, three letters, two of which were from the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) were received, and several emails and telephone calls were received about the proposal. Most of the questions were related to concerns over possible annexation. He said nothing behind this proposal was being driven by perceived desire to increase the annexation policies of the City of Springfield. This was a BCC directed action. Mr. Miller said currently a request for rezoning a site from agricultural use to a sand and gravel use that was outside the UGB, subject to Metro Plan designations. The City of Springfield and potentially the City of Eugene could be decision makers on the zone change application. SUB felt more secure with the City of Springfield making a decision on whether or not to approve that application. He reviewed the suggestions proposed by SUB which were included in the agenda packet. SUB had proposed an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the City of Springfield and Lane County in which the Metro Plan boundary was moved, and the City of Springfield would have some say in decisions that would have an impact on its water source. SUB suggested Lane County adopt SUB’s drinking water protection plan and the well head protection overlay ordinance that protected ground water for rural Lane County in the future. Mr. Miller added the commissioners had the option of making no recommendation on any of SUB’s potential resolutions. Mr. Hopkins said he had placed a memorandum from the Springfield City Attorney at the places of the Springfield Planning Commissioners that discussed the IGA concept. Mr. Hopkins had asked if the IGA could grant extraterritorial jurisdiction to the City. The City Attorney had responded “perhaps”. There was nothing in State law that said “no” or “yes”. IGA’s were intended to be flexible and it was likely an IGA would allow granting extraterritorial jurisdiction. However, City Attorney was of the opinion that would be a very unusual use of an IGA. Staff recommended revising the Metro Plan boundary and recommended that Lane County adopt its own drinking water standards. It would grant the County complete autonomy. The IGA was not clear on whether the extraterritorial jurisdiction authority could be granted. MINUTES—Joint Planning Commissions July 19, 2011 Page 3 Lane County, City of Eugene, City of Springfield Work Session and Public Hearing In response to a question from Ms. Nichols, Mr. Miller explained drinking water standards were not a component of the project before the commissioners this evening, but were separate issues that the BCC would have to place on the Land Management Division’s work plan. An IGA was more likely to be adopted than SUB’s drinking water protection plan in rural Lane County. Responding to Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Howe said the County had addressed drinking water protections in the past. The City of Springfield had adopted them within its UGB. Adopting a narrowly focused drinking water protection plan was doable in the County. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Miller stated there were portions of SUB’s well head areas that extended beyond the City of Springfield’s UGB for which SUB maintained the current protections. There was no IGA in place between the County and SUB outside of the Metro Plan boundary. Mr. Howe asserted for the last 30 years, Lane County had provided protection to the well head areas for Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) and SUB, regardless of whether they were inside or outside the Metro Plan boundary. If the well head areas were outside of the UGB, rural zoning, LC 16 provided protection to those areas and there would be no change in moving the Metro Plan boundary to those zoning regulations. The BCC could represent the community interest without the Springfield City Council regarding well head water protection. Ms. Arkin recalled when the Lane County Planning Commission had discussed rural industrial use for asphalt batching plant south of Springfield. Part of the consideration was time to travel zones that were not related to agricultural or forestry under the area of RCP. Mr. Miller said there were some sand and gravel zoned properties inside the current Metro Plan boundary, the majority of which had recently been acquired by The Nature Conservancy. Current regulations for sand and gravel operations would not change as a result of the proposed amendment. Ms. Arkin asked if issuance of a special use permit for industrial use would negate the intent of protecting Springfield’s drinking water. Mr. Miller said anything allowed under the current zoning regulations would not change. He added there was no industrial land in the Phase 1 project. The only change that would occur would be if an agricultural use changed to a sand and gravel operation. Under the proposed change, Lane County would be the sole decision maker for that type of zone change application. Responding to Ms. Bean, Mr. Miller clarified there was no change in the water protection guidelines. The only change was the decision making authority for zone change applications. For the Lane County Planning Commission only: 2. ORDINANCE NO. PA 1283—In the matter of amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan by Applying Rural Comprehensive Plan designations to lands removed from the Metro Plan pursuant to Ordinance No. PA 1281, adopting the City of Springfield’s parcel specific urban growth boundary on official Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan maps to comply with OAR 660-024-0020(2) and adopting savings and severability clauses. MINUTES—Joint Planning Commissions July 19, 2011 Page 4 Lane County, City of Eugene, City of Springfield Work Session and Public Hearing  3. ORDINANCE NO. PA 1284—In the matter of amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan by rezoning rural residential lands regulated under LC 16.231, which were removed from the Metro Plan pursuant to Ordinance No. PA 1281, with updated Rural Residential zone language contained in LC 16.290 and adopting savings and severability clauses. 4. ORDINANCE NO. 11-XX-XX—In the matter of amending the LC by modifying existing stream riparian regulations to apply safe harbor setbacks to Goal 5 riparian resources removed from the Metro Plan by Ordinance No. P 1281, LC 16.253. Mr. McCown called for continuation of the discussion after the public hearing. B. PUBLIC HEARING Lane County is proposing amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP) for the Metro Plan area east of Interstate 5 (I-5). These amendments include: 1. ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281—In the matter of amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan by reducing the total land area within the Metro Plan east of Interstate 5 and adopting a new Metro Plan boundary that is coterminous with the City of Springfield’s urban growth boundary and adopting savings and severability clauses. Mr. McCown opened the Lane County Planning Commission public hearing for Ordinance PA 1281, Ordinance PA 1283, Ordinance PA 1284, and Ordinance 11-XX-XX at 7:08 p.m. Mr. Kirschenmann opened the City of Springfield Planning Commission public hearing. Mr. Mills opened the City of Eugene Planning Commission public hearing. Mr. McCown explained the Planning Commissions’ recommendations were subject to findings of facts shown to be in compliance with the applicable Metro Plan policies, the RCP and LC criteria cited in the staff report. Evidence and testimony must be directed toward the approval criteria. Testimony not directed toward the approval criteria was irrelevant to the land use proceeding. Written information submitted prior to or during the public hearing would be considered part of the record. Written testimony submitted after the public hearing would only be accepted if the record was held open. Failure to raise an issue to enable a response may preclude appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Only persons who qualified as party may appeal the decision of the elected officials to LUBA. Mr. Miller provided the staff report. Lane County was proposing amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP) for the Metro Plan area east of Interstate 5 (I-5), including Ordinance No. PA 1281, Ordinance No. PA 1282, Ordinance No. PA 1284, and Ordinance No. 11-XX-XX. He directed commissioners to the agenda packet for detailed information on the proposed amendments. The Springfield Planning Commission and Eugene Planning Commission should limit their deliberations to the Metro Plan boundary amendment. If resolution to the Metro Plan boundary was reached, the Springfield and Eugene Planning Commissions could excuse themselves and the Lane County Planning Commission would deliberate amendments specific to the County. Comments previously received from the public had been submitted to the record. He stated staff from Lane County, the City of Eugene, and the City of Springfield recommended that their planning commissions forward a recommendation to their respective elected officials to adopt the MINUTES—Joint Planning Commissions July 19, 2011 Page 5 Lane County, City of Eugene, City of Springfield Work Session and Public Hearing proposed boundary change. County staff recommended that the Lane County Planning Commission adopt the proposed companion amendments to the RCP. Mr. McCown called for public testimony. Tamara Johnson, P.O. Box 300, Springfield, identified herself as the Director of the Springfield Utility Board Water Department. She stated it was in SUBs interest to protect its water supply. If the Metro Plan boundary changed to the UGB, ordinances or protections to the water would not change. What it would change was who was automatically at the table to make the decisions. SUB had a close working relationship with the City of Springfield which had a deep understanding of what it meant to protect the water and had adopted ordinances within the City to provide those protections. SUB felt the City was educated about the issues and would be able to represent SUB in the decision making process. SUB felt that the County could be educated about issues. SUB was confident that the City was already qualified, knowledgeable and educated about those issues. She added SUB cared about maintaining the water protection for the well heads, noting a good portion of SUB’s water came from outside the UGB. SUB wanted to work collaboratively and participate in any discussion related to water quality issues. SUB had been asked to provide options for moving forward. SUB thought an IGA or continuing Metro constraints within the well head protection area were workable options. SUB was open to other possibilities. Mr. Sullivan asked if SUB would support the option proposed by the City of Springfield. Ms. Johnson said SUB would support whatever the City of Springfield felt it needed to do for itself, but if a City proposal did not protect SUB’s water rights, SUB would pursue discussions with Lane County or whomever had jurisdiction. Mr. Hledik asked if SUB had authority under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) that required protections of drinking water. Ms. Johnson said SUB had a drinking water protection plan filed with the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) which provided limited protection that was more conceptual than regulatory. In response to a question from Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki, Mr. Hawkins stated all of the City’s land use planners worked directly with SUB. Mr. Mott explained during periodic review, prior to 2004, the City entered into cooperative agreements with all of its providers, including Springfield School District 19, Willamalane Park and Recreation District, Rainbow Water District, and SUB, which specified the cooperation each would extend the other when engaged in planning activities. Donna Robinson, 87746 Collins Lane, Springfield, spoke in favor of passage of the proposed Metro Plan amendment that would redefine the plan border in east Springfield. She stated she and her husband purchased an eight acre site in 2008 that was adjacent to their home with the intent of dividing the land for their two sons. The purchase was made after being assured by Lane County Land Management staff that the site was subject to a rural residential two acre minimum. After purchasing the land, her family contracted with Branch Engineering in Springfield to do the necessary survey work. Branch Engineering checked with Lane County and was also told the site was subject to a two acre minimum. In January 2010, the survey work was completed, and the property which had been a meth lab, was cleaned up. The preliminary petition paperwork was submitted to the County and she regularly followed up on the process. In August 2010, the planner called and notified the Robinsons of a problem. The zoning MINUTES—Joint Planning Commissions July 19, 2011 Page 6 Lane County, City of Eugene, City of Springfield Work Session and Public Hearing information the Robinsons had been given was wrong, and the site was within the Metro Plan boundary, which required a five acre rather than two acre minimum. Ms. Robinson had focused her energy during the last year to find a resolution to the mess. Inaccurate zoning from the County had caused her family hardship, heartache, and a lot of money. The property was outside of Springfield’s UGB. Passage of the proposed amendment would place the Robinson’s land in the RCP, out of the Metro Plan, and she had been assured by Land Management staff the site would be subject to the rural residential two acre minimum. The family had been frustrated during the past year in spite of the fact that it followed all of the rules, did due diligence, and was derailed by bad information supplied by the County. She thanked the BCC, the Planning Commissioners, Mr. Howe and his staff for putting this amendment together. She hoped it would pass. Kevin Matthews, P.O. Box 1588, representing Friend of Eugene, read from the staff finding, and noted it was not a strong finding. There were laws and regulations that impeded Lane County’s ability to make land use decisions on lands beyond the city limits and the UGB. He asked if this was the time and were there strong reasons for a contraction of the Metro Plan area. Friend of Eugene claimed that in 2011 regional planning was needed more than ever. Some Planning Commissioners had expressed concerns about controlling vehicle miles traveled (VMT) when controlling actions would result in displacement of growth outside cities. This attempt to shrink the Metro Plan was ill advised and ill timed. Staff had not been clear on impacts of the changes. Under the proposal some decisions would change from Hearings Official decisions to Planning Director decisions. He said the changes in the regulations related to Goal 5 were not a complete wash. Friend of Eugene was prepared to appeal this change if adopted for failing to follow Goal 5 procedures. Trust had been raised as an issue. The trusting thing to do was to collaborate. He claimed the proposal was inconsistent with the Metro Plan and the findings were not robust enough for the plan amendment. He suggested the Planning Commissions recommend the proposal not go forward until it was better understood. Ms. Arkin asked Mr. Matthew for clarification on his Goal 5 observations. Mr. Matthews said it was too technical to talk about tonight but if the hearing was held open for a couple of weeks, Friend of Eugene would submit a detailed written analysis. Rodney Meyers, 6731 Thurston Road, Springfield, said he purchased a parcel on Billings Road in 1970. At time, another property owner told him the access to the parcel was through his property. Mr. Meyers searched County records and found the road was a County road. Mr. Meyers had a shop from which he operated several businesses. He asked what impact the proposed amendment would have on his property, most of which was consumed by the shop building. Ms. Wright stated she had recently spoken with Mr. Meyers on the telephone, noting he had a cabinet making shop. If a property owner had a non-conforming use because the site was zoned rural residential, the County would see the use as a preexisting, non-conforming use. If the zone changes occurred, Mr. Meyers could continue with the shop operations under the new zoning. Mr. Meyers said his son owned an electrical contracting firm for which he stored materials at the shop. Mr. Meyers spent most of his time at the shop, although he was not currently building cabinets commercially. Mr. Cross asked what would happen if ownership of the site was changed to Mr. Meyer’s son. MINUTES—Joint Planning Commissions July 19, 2011 Page 7 Lane County, City of Eugene, City of Springfield Work Session and Public Hearing Mr. Vorhes said the uses would not change with a change in ownership. There were provisions that addressed how to continue or replace pre-existing, non-conforming use. Tim Marshall, 32260 Old Highway 34, Tangent, stated he represented Knife River Corporation which owned property just outside of the Springfield quarry which was a large sand and gravel resource property. The company has had discussions for several years with SUB. The company supported Lane County’s pursuit of the proposed amendment and its intent to have autonomy over the lands. Existing County and State rules did not allow the company or others to create impacts to other people. Mr. McCown said there had been a request to keep the record open. Mr. Brew asked if Friend of Eugene was on the mailing list and had had the information for two weeks as had the commissioners Mr. Miller would check to see if Friend of Eugene was on the mailing list. Ms. Warnes, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved that the Eugene Planning Commission hold the record open for two weeks. Ms. Arkin, seconded by Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki, moved that the Lane County Planning Commission hold the record and public hearing open for two weeks. In response to a question from Mr. McCown, Mr. Miller said the commissions were required to hold the record open for seven days if requested do to so by a member of the public. The public hearing could be continued on August 16, 2011 at Harris Hall at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Sullivan observed Mr. Matthews had suggested rather than requested that the record be kept open. The record should reflect that the Planning Commissioners were requesting the record be kept open. Mr. Cross, seconded by Mr. James, moved that the Springfield Planning Commission hold the record and public hearing open for two weeks. Mr. Mott said it served no purpose to leave both the record and public hearing open for two weeks. He suggested leaving the record and public hearing open until the commissions reconvened on August 16. By doing so may require providing additional time for staff response to testimony. He suggested leaving the record open for two weeks, which would provide time for staff to respond to testimony submitted to the record. The joint Planning Commissions would reconvene on August 16 for deliberations. Mr. Belcher asked if there was an urgency in the matter that a delay of leaving the record and public hearing open until August 16 would cause. Mr. Mott said this issue had been around for five or six years, and he was not sure a week or two would have a significant impact. Mr. Belcher requested that Ms. Warnes’ motion be consistent with those of Lane County and the City of Springfield, and the public hearing and the record be held open until August 16. Ms.Warnes agreed with Mr. Belcher’s request. MINUTES—Joint Planning Commissions July 19, 2011 Page 8 Lane County, City of Eugene, City of Springfield Work Session and Public Hearing  Ms. Arkin amended the Lane County motion to leave the public hearing and record open until August 16, 2011. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki seconded Ms. Arkin amendment. Mr. Cross opined that leaving the record open for two weeks would provide staff time to gather additional comments from the public and provide information for the commissioners to consider at the August 16 meeting. He recommended leaving the record open for two weeks. Mr. Sullivan said Mr. Matthews by his own admission, brought up too much information in his testimony and was willing to submit additional information. At this point, with Mr. Matthews’ testimony, the commissions did not have any fact, but rather opinions and “I believes”. The commissioners should not take into consideration the possibility of an appeal in its deliberations. That was a consideration for the elected officials. Since keeping the record and public hearing open was driven by the opinion of one individual that this should be looked at more deeply, having an additional public hearing would only extend the time and penalize the public that was waiting for a decision. There were two bites to the apple, the Planning Commissions’ bite and the decision makers’ bite. The more information the Planning Commissions could gather for inclusion in the record, would allow the record to fill out, allow the commissions to move forward in August and not be concerned there would be another formal request by a commissioner or the public to keep the public hearing open, after which it would go to the elected officials. He was opposed to being the block rather than the gatherer of information. He would vote against keeping the record and public hearing open. Mr. Brew concurred with Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Brew would vote against keeping the record and public hearing open. There had been public meeting mass mailings which provided the public time to react to the issue. He saw no purpose in extending the time. Ms. Arkin said the first time the BCC directed Land Management staff to initiated this amendment was in February 2010, which was not that long ago. This was the first time the three Planning Commissions had met together on the issues. She did not know what difference 10 days would make. She believed the purpose of government was to provide opportunity for the public to participate. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to divide the motion for the City of Eugene Planning Commission, to enable the commission to vote separately on whether or not to leave the record and/or public hearing open. Ms. Gardner proposed the City of Eugene Planning Commission defer action until the Lane County and City of Springfield Planning Commissions took their action. At that time, the Eugene Planning Commission could retract the original motion and propose a new motion, based on the action of the Lane County and City of Springfield Planning Commissions. The Lane County Planning Commission motion passed 6:1, with Commissioners Arkin, Goldstein, Nichols, McCown, Sisson and Siekiel-Zdzienicki voting in favor and Commissioner Sullivan voting against the motion. Ms. Bridget-Smith suggested it would be cleaner if all three Planning Commissions were voting on the same motion. MINUTES—Joint Planning Commissions July 19, 2011 Page 9 Lane County, City of Eugene, City of Springfield Work Session and Public Hearing  The City of Springfield Planning Commission motion passed 5:2, with Commissioners Cross, James, Kirschenmann, Moe and Salladay voting in favor of the motion, and Commissioners Bean and Brew voting against the motion. Ms. Warnes retracted the City of Eugene motion and Mr. Belcher retracted his second to the motion. Ms. Warnes, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to hold the record and public hearing open until August 16. The motion passed 6:1, with Commissioners Beierle, Belcher, Duncan, Hledik, Randall, Warnes voting in favor of the motion, and Commissioner Mills voting against the motion. Mr. McCown stated the record and public hearing would remain open until August 16, 2011. He called for questions and comments from commissioners. In response to a question from Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Mott concurred that someone could provide testimony on August 16 that may require an extension of the timeline to allow staff to respond to new information. Mr. Sullivan asserted the motions approved by the three commissions could push any action out an additional six weeks, and he was concerned that two Lane County Planning Commissioners’ terms would end during that period. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said this was an example of why Lane County wanted to make the Metro Plan be co-terminus with the UGB. He requested that members of the public submit any written testimony as soon as possible to give commissioners sufficient time to review it. Responding to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Miller said currently under LC 16.231, called for Hearings Official decisions on a number of uses. The trend in Lane County was to move away from the Hearings Official. The majority of current zoning ordinances called for director level decision or BCC level decision. He added decisions from the Hearings Official and the director were appealable up to the BCC. Responding to Ms. Nichols, Mr. Miller said there were possibly five other tax lots that could be impacted by the proposed amendment in addition to Ms. Robinson’s parcel. He added annexation was an issue of concern raised by the public. Staff had attempted to let people know that this proposal had nothing to do with annexation. Mr. Cross inquired about arrangements Lane County had with other utility providers such as the City of Springfield had with SUB. Mr. Vorhes said arrangements with utility providers were driven by the statute that addressed urban services and who the urban service providers were going to be. Lane County’s involvement was typically limited to getting urban service providers together and letting them work out agreements about how those urban services would be provided as the city annexed or moved into those district areas. It was an urban service agreement which was typically seen within the UGBs. Mr. Belcher asked if a 190 agreement was a possibility in resolving this issue. Mr. Vorhes said it depended on the parties, noting any in agreement it took two parties to say yes, we want to do something. Theoretically, Lane County had joint management agreements with other cities, MINUTES—Joint Planning Commissions July 19, 2011 Page 10 Lane County, City of Eugene, City of Springfield Work Session and Public Hearing and the Metro Plan technically was an embodiment of it in the metropolitan area. Most of those agreements were typically referral and comment situations, rather than referral and decision making arrangements. There were joint management agreements with the cities that included areas of interest outside of the UGB which addressed where the County would give notice of County action outside the city limits, and the cities would give the County notice of city action inside and outside the city limits that might affect the County functions and facilities. The ultimate decision rested with the BCC. A 190 agreement was an option that could be considered, but the City Council and BCC would have to reach agreement that was the direction they wanted to take. Mr. Sullivan encouraged SUB, the City of Springfield and Lane County to use the additional time to get further into the four options presented, so that the Planning Commissioners were dealing one or two options, with staff recommendations. He encouraged the Friend of Eugene to address those findings of fact which they felt had substance, rather than all 75 findings of fact, some of which were boiler plate language. He further suggested they separate the issue from H.B. 3337 because the commissions were not in a position to rate the merits of H.B. 3337. For the Lane County Planning Commission only: 2. ORDINANCE NO. PA 1283—In the matter of amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan by Applying Rural Comprehensive Plan designations to lands removed from the Metro Plan pursuant to Ordinance No. PA 1281, adopting the City of Springfield’s parcel specific urban growth boundary on official Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan maps to comply with OAR 660-024-0020(2) and adopting savings and severability clauses. 3. ORDINANCE NO. PA 1284—In the matter of amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan by rezoning rural residential lands regulated under LC 16.231, which were removed from the Metro Plan pursuant to Ordinance No. PA 1281, with updated Rural Residential zone language contained in LC 16.290 and adopting savings and severability clauses. 4. ORDINANCE NO. 11-XX-XX —In the matter of amending the LC by modifying existing stream riparian regulations to apply safe harbor setbacks to Goal 5 riparian resources removed from the Metro Plan by Ordinance No. P 1281, LC 16.253. Mr. McCown stated the Planning Commissions would meet on August 16, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. McCown adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Joint Planning Commissions July 19, 2011 Page 11 Lane County, City of Eugene, City of Springfield Work Session and Public Hearing