Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Belcher stressed the importance of advising the City Council that the Planning Commission did not <br />strongly support all of the issues identified by Lane County. <br /> <br />Mr. Coyle left the meeting. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. Muir said a letter from the Planning Commission would <br />be sent to the City Council, adding that the issue had not yet been scheduled on the City Council <br />calendar. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Howe said the proposed amendments would be <br />considered by the Springfield Planning Commission on March 1, 2005 and b~tho::Lane County Planning <br />Commission on March 15, 2005. ::::::::::::::::::::::: <br /> <br />Ms. Colbath reiterated the Planning Commission's contention that the proposed ametidment wa~:a land <br />use issue only, and that the Planning Commission did not support now and would not suppo~!:~::the <br />future creation of a taxing district. ;,:;~ :: :~ <br /> <br />There was consensus to support a change offered by Mr. Belcher on Attachmefi;~l~B, Findings in Support, <br />item six as follows: Goals of proposed change are to allow fo= 9 new financing::~ehiele without <br />undermining the compact urban growth policies of the Metro P!~, <br /> <br />Ms. Muir noted consensus of the Planning CommissiOners on the remaind~ of the findings. <br /> <br />Mr. Howe said he would convey the concems..of the Planning Commission to the Lane County Planning <br />Commissioners. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher expressed appreciation to the Lane County staff for the hard work they put into drafting the <br />proposed amendment language, <br /> <br />Mr. Hledik leR at 12:40 p.m. <br /> <br />II. DISCUSSION: KEY CODE AMENDMENTS <br /> <br />Mr. Nystrom stated~that, the Planning Commission was acting as the Citizen Involvement Committee <br />(CIC) for the Key Code Amendments process. <br /> <br />Mr. Nystrom reviewed the process and identified the three key milestones: · Solicit amendments to be considered from the public, noting the staff list was completed. <br /> · Prioritizing the combined lists of the community and staff, noting that the resulting list will be <br /> too long to complete. <br /> · Consultant preparation of potential solutions and Planning Commission review of the recom- <br /> mendation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Coyle returned. <br /> <br /> Mr. Nystrom said the public involvement process would include a number of workshops, meetings, and <br /> <br />MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 4 <br /> <br /> <br />