Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 10 23 Joint NAME OF MEETING: Joint Planning Commission (Eugene, Springfield, Lane County) DATE OF MEETING: October 23, 2014 TO: Brenda Jones, Chris Rogers, Carolyn Burke RECORDED BY: Lynn Taylor = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 10/27/14 lt Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = MINUTES—Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing October 23, 2014 Page 1 M I N U T E S Joint Planning Commission Library Meeting Room—225 East 5th Avenue Springfield, Oregon October 23, 2014 7 p.m. PRESENT: Greg James, Chair; Johny Kirschenmann, Steve Moe, Tim Vohs, Nick Nelson (Springfield Planning Commission); Ryan Sisson, Chair; Larry Thorp, Charles Conrad, Dwight Coon, Randy Hledik, James Peterson, Gary Rose, Jason Thiesfel Lane County Planning Commission); William Randall, Chair; John Jaworski, Richard Duncan, John Barofsky, Jeffery Mills (Eugene Planning Commission; Mark Metzger, Len Goodwin, Lauren King (City of Springfield staff); Matt Laird, Keir Miller (Lane County staff); Carolyn Burke, Ann Davies, Alissa Hansen (City of Eugene staff); Emily Jerome, Lane Livability Consortium; Bill Kloos, Oregon Land Use Law. Mr. James convened the meeting. He announced that the Eugene, Springfield and Lane County planning commissions were meeting jointly to conduct public hearings to consider two issues: amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan) and amendments to the Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County regulating codes for the purpose of implementing previously approved changes to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan. Those present introduced themselves. Mr. James noted that a public hearing would be conducted on each issue. The planning commissions would not make final decisions, but would make recommendations on the proposed amendments to their respective elected officials. Mr. Metzger provided a brief overview of the agenda and order of proceedings. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING 1. Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan "Metro Plan" Allowing for the Adoption of City-Specific Comprehensive Plans and Policies. Mr. James opened the public hearing for the Springfield Planning Commission. He noted that those wishing to testify would have five minutes and encouraged written comments as well. Mr. Sisson opened the public hearing for the Lane County Planning Commission. Mr. Randall opened the public hearing for the Eugene Planning Commission. Ms. Jerome stated that state law required every city to have a comprehensive plan that included an urban growth boundary (UGB), within which was a 20-year supply of land for housing, employment, parks, schools and public facilities, including transportation. She said historically Eugene and Springfield had addressed those requirements in partnership, with co-adoption by Lane County, through the Metro Plan, which was the guiding policy document for both cities. She said the specific MINUTES—Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing October 23, 2014 Page 2 purpose of the proposed amendments was to enable each city to move forward with a new approach to comprehensive planning by developing independent city-specific comprehensive plans that worked in conjunction with the Metro Plan and might eventually supplant it. Ms. Jerome said HB 3337, passed by the legislature in 2007, mandated that Eugene and Springfield establish their own separate UGBs. She said the cities were still required to engage in regional planning for transportation and public facilities and there were many other areas in which regional collaboration would continue. The proposed amendments were not intended to make substantive changes to policy direction or designations that applied to land. They served three purposes: • Revisions to enable each city to independently establish a city-specific comprehensive plan with its own UGB • Update and explain the status of the Metro Plan to provide users and readers with an understanding of its evolving nature • Revision or removal of text that no longer applied Ms. Davies said it had been brought to the attention of staff that there were discrepancies in the Metro Plan Diagram Map and Metro Plan Boundary map included in the proposed amendments; some land designations were inconsistent with those in the officially adopted 2004 Metro Plan Diagram. She said staff had confirmed there were discrepancies and recommended that the planning commissions remove those maps. Ms. Jerome clarified that the Eugene agenda packet contained only the proposed maps; Springfield and Lane County agenda packets included both the current and proposed maps. Mr. Hledik asked annexations would be guided if the language in Metro Plan Policy 12 regarding criteria for the annexation of land by Eugene or Springfield that was not contiguous to their boundaries was removed. Ms. Jerome said those types of non-contiguous annexations had not been possible since the Lane County Boundary Commission became defunct in 2007. The Boundary Commissions had the authority to annex land that was not contiguous to city limits and when it was eliminated annexations in Lane County became subject to statutory annexation laws, which did not allow annexation of land that was not contiguous with city limits. Mr. James explained the rules for providing testimony. Bill Kloos, Oregon Land Use Law, Eugene, spoke on behalf of his client Environ-Metal Products, LLC. He noted he had submitted a letter dated October 22, 2014, to the Joint Planning Commission setting forth his concerns regarding the Metro Plan enabling amendments. He said the proposed Metro Plan Diagram map was wrong as it was not based on adopted 2004 Metro Plan Diagram, but rather on a version generated by Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) that was printed in a different manner than the official version. He thanked staff for their recommendation to remove the maps. Mr. Kloos expressed concerned that it was not possible to access online an accurate copy, including site-specific amendments, of the official 2004 Metro Plan Diagram. He said maintaining an accurate Metro Plan Diagram that was accessible to the public was a long-standing problem. In response to a question from Mr. Peterson, Ms. Davies said that removing the proposed Metro Plan Diagram from the proposed amendments meant that the 2004 adopted version would still be in effect. MINUTES—Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing October 23, 2014 Page 3 Mr. Goodwin stated that actions of the Lane County and Springfield planning commissions in 2011 and 2013 established a Springfield UGB; that UGB was consistent with the adopted 2004 Metro Plan Diagram and subsequent amendments. He said the issue raised by Mr. Kloos was a matter for Eugene and Lane County as the property was not within the City of Springfield. In response to a question from Mr. Peterson, Ms. King said that even though the proposed Metro Plan Diagram was accurate for Springfield staff recommended continuing with the existing 2004 version of the Metro Plan Diagram to avoid confusion or multiple diagrams. Mr. James determined there was no one else wishing to testify. Mr. Kirschenmann, seconded by Mr. Moe, moved to close the public hearing and record for the Springfield Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Jaworski, moved to close the public hearing and the record for the Eugene Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Conrad, moved to close the public hearing and the record for the Lane County Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. James observed that amending Chapter IV of the Metro Plan last year was a difficult and challenging process. He supported the current proposal and commended the efforts of staff. Mr. James, Mr. Sisson and Mr. Randall determined that members of all three planning commissions were in agreement to conduct joint rather than separate deliberations. Mr. Hledik commended staff for its management of the process. He felt that the findings were complete, accurate, comprehensive and thorough. Mr. Kirschenmann complimented the staff's work and concurred with its recommendations. Mr. James determined there were no further comments or questions from Springfield Planning Commission members and called for a motion. Mr. Nelson, seconded by Mr. Moe, moved to recommend to the Springfield City Council approval of the amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan allowing for the adoption of the city-specific comprehensive plans and policies, with the following conditions: Metro Plan Diagram and Metro Plan Boundary were to be left out (Attachment 4, pages 1-2 and Attachment 5, pages 1-2). The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Randall determined there were no further comments or questions from Eugene Planning Commission members and called for a motion. MINUTES—Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing October 23, 2014 Page 4 Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Jaworski, moved to approve the amendments in Attachment A, but remove the maps in Attachments C and D. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Sisson determined there were no further deliberations from Lane County Planning Commission members and called for a motion. Mr. Thorp, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved the Lane County Planning Commission recommend to the Lane County Board of Commissioners that it adopt the proposed Ordinance PA 1313, excluding Exhibits B and C. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 2. Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan "Metro Plan" Allowing for the Adoption of City-Specific Comprehensive Plans and Policies. Mr. James opened the public hearing for the Springfield Planning Commission. Mr. Sisson opened the public hearing for the Lane County Planning Commission. Mr. Randall opened the public hearing for the Eugene Planning Commission. Mr. Miller said the purpose of the hearing was to consider and make recommendations on a package of code amendments to the Springfield, Eugene and Lane County building codes. He said ORS 197.175 required each county and city in Oregon to develop a comprehensive plan and enact land use regulations to implement that plan. He said the amendments would codify previous amendments to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan and lay the groundwork to move away from the Metro Plan and allow Eugene and Springfield to develop their own comprehensive plans and establish independent UGBs. Mr. Miller pointed out that the Metro Plan required each of the jurisdictions to adopt substantively identical language. He said the materials in each commission's agenda packet might look somewhat different in format, but the content had been reviewed by staff and legal counsel and determined to be substantively identical. He briefly reviewed the four main components of the proposed amendments: • Removal of references to regional impact • Revised conflict resolution procedures: failure to reach unanimous agreement on a Metro Plan amendment would no longer be referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee for resolution; the matter would now be referred to the Lane County Board of Commissioners and the mayor(s) of the city or cities involved for conflict resolution • Aligned the type of Metro Plan amendment (I, II, or III) with the corresponding number of jurisdictions involved • Revised the amendment process for UGBs or boundary amendments to the Metro Plan Mr. Miller said staff findings of consistency with Statewide Planning Goals were included in the agenda materials. He clarified that the Eugene Planning Commission would be making recommendation regarding the Eugene Code that was applicable inside the city limits; the Springfield Planning Commission would be making recommendations regarding the Springfield Code that was applicable within the city limits and within the Urban Transition Area within the UGB; and Lane MINUTES—Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing October 23, 2014 Page 5 County was required to co-adopt the amendments and the Planning Commission would be making recommendations regarding Lane Code Chapter XII. In response to a question from Mr. Peterson, Mr. Miller said the changes reflected in the proposed amendments had already been approved at the policy level; the amendments would codify those changes. Mr. James determined that there was no one wishing to testify. Mr. Moe, seconded by Mr. Kirschenmann, moved to close the public hearing and record for the Springfield Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Jaworski, moved to close the public hearing and the record for the Eugene Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to close the public hearing and the record for the Lane County Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Barofsky drew commissioners' attention to the code amendment language relating to conflict resolution. He expressed concern with the language that considered a plan amendment to be denied if there was no recommendation back to the governing bodies within six months of the referral of the disputed matter to the chair of the Lane County Board of Commissions and the mayor of the involved jurisdiction. He cautioned that could result in a pocket veto if the mayor or chair failed to act, even though the majority on their commission or council might have an opposing opinion. He said Eugene staff had indicated there would be administrative rules and operating agreements that would prevent that from occurring in the city, but it was important that the other jurisdictions be aware of the issue and have operating agreements in place to avoid a pocket veto of a Metro Plan amendment. Mr. Peterson said there should be three parties involved in resolution of a conflict between two of the parties Mr. Randall commented that Mr. Barofsky was suggesting that each jurisdiction should assure that its governing body had procedures and operating agreements in place that would prevent a pocket veto thwarting the will of the majority. Mr. Barofsky reiterated that his primary concern was the addition of language establishing a timeframe of six months, after which an amendment was deemed to be denied if no recommendation was forthcoming. Mr. Thorp pointed out that the City of Eugene had a mayor elected by the public, while the chair of the Lane County Board of Commissioners was elected by the other commissioners. He felt the political dynamics were different and it was unlikely the commission's chair would thwart the majority's will. Mr. Miller said a set of conflict resolution procedures, similar to those now used by the MPC, could be recommended to the Board of Commissioners to alleviate concerns. MINUTES—Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing October 23, 2014 Page 6 Mr. Jaworski asked how administrative rules or operating agreements could override the code language stating that an amendment was denied if there was no recommendation within six months. Ms. Burke replied that the Eugene City Council did not object to the proposed conflict resolution process, but had made clear its desire to have the mayor check in with the council before taking any course of action or making a decision. She said the council's operating agreements would be updated to assure that happened. Mr. Jaworski was not certain the request for a check in by the mayor fully addressed the concern expressed by Mr. Barofsky. Mr. Goodwin said the Springfield City Council had a similar discussion about the proposed conflict resolution procedures and had expressed full confidence that the mayor would represent the views of the body as a whole, whether or not the mayor held the same view. He said the council supported the timeline for action so that conflict resolution did not become an interminable process. Mr. Hledik asked if there were options for appeal if an amendment was determined to be denied if there was no action within six months. Mr. Goodwin replied that an appeal could be made and the six month termination date was necessary in order to establish a denial and allow for an appeal to be made. Mr. Peterson said there was recourse to a pocket veto; the matter could be taken to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) for resolution. Conflict resolution was LUBA's task and he felt the six- month period language should be left in the proposed amendments. Mr. James said both Eugene and Springfield could establish operating agreements and although that was beyond the purview of planning commissions, the commissions' recommendation could include advice to have those agreements in place. Mr. James and Mr. Randall determined there were no further comments or questions from Eugene and Springfield planning commission members. Mr. Sisson suggested that the Lane County Planning Commission allow the Eugene and Springfield commissions to take action and then capture those actions in its own motions. Mr. Nelson, seconded by Mr. Vohs, moved to recommend approval to the Springfield City Council the amendments to the Springfield Development Code Section 5.14-100 implementing adopted changes to the Metro Plan Chapter IV. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Jaworski, seconded by Mr. Mills, moved to recommend approval to the Eugene City Council the amendments to Eugene Code 9.0500, 9.7055, 9.7702, 9.750. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Sisson determined there were no further comments or questions from Lane County Planning Commission members. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved to recommend to the Lane County Board of Commissioners that it adopt Ordinance No. 14-15. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing October 23, 2014 Page 7 Mr. Thorp, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved that the Lane County Planning Commission recommended to the Lane County Board of Commissioners approval of proposed Ordinance No. 14-12, amending the Lane Code to incorporate changes necessitated by changes to the Metro Plan. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. James adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor)