Agenda - 04/19/05 JEO Mtg. - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 specialdi~tfi~ts were used. Mr. Hledik noted Policy 15 had been crafted when circumstance~i~Were different, wi~ eparate fire and ....... ~.i~ii~':;. ~i~. . , ~,:~i?~. . ~ water d~stncts, and the c~t~es were logastmal providers of those s~ees..~e quest~on~!~.~this amend- . . '?i~!::. ~ .~:: i~::,:,'' :"~,: ~: ment was really necessary, asking ~f an alternate way to address th~i~iie had been consi~d/~t2ed... Mr. Lawless said this proposal provided a way to clarify service d~StriCt~:~bss the county which currently was unclear, adding that this provided a method to untangle Lan~*~un~ s .c~d'ces 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 oathe issue of single.versus plural service districts, but expressed concern that the proposal woulc~:open the d~for a flood of other requests. Ms. Colbath noted that in other jurisdicfi6~, services such as~iibfades and sewers were commonly done on a county-wide basis. :~!i~ ~e Pl~g Commission may see more of this type of request as a land use issue rath~!~~ 'issue in the future. Mr. Duncan ~ed if the City Attomey'~d reviewed the proposed amendment, noting that he wanted to see a narrow interpretation. Mr. Yeit~ ,e,o_ nfinned that the proposed amendment had been reviewed by the City Attorney. Mr. Coyle saidi~[i~lar issues in many other states were handled outside of the land use process, adding this be~gger questio~ that being was there a need to focus on special districts. Mr. Belcher said the r~ ~n was not land use but fiscal issue, noting it was challenging to refrain from making the ~ onerous. He asked if the proposed amendment would create one or more districts or if it was.~untywide. Mr. Howe replied that the amendment would create a single district that encompassed the whole county. At the suggestion of Mr. Belcher, the Commission unaminously 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" MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 2