Laserfiche WebLink
<br />l- <br />Ll. <br />< <br />a: <br /> <br /> <br />refinement planpolicie.s and were proposing to adopt code changes, they should be part of the <br />deliberations and findings. <br /> <br />Mr. Yeiter said the policies were too broadly stated to be applicable to specific sites, but would be <br />used as guidance for C'it)' action, \~hich ,vas refle;cted in the ordinance language. The staff <br />findi.ngs in theAIS did not specifically address local policies such as growth managenlent <br />policies adopted outside of the Metro Plan or refineme~t plans. He reminded theCOllltllission <br />that it cou~d correspond with the City Council. outside of the findings, and make specific <br />recommendations outside of tbe ctiterhi. Additionally, if the Comm ission had concerns or <br />wanted to rnake a statement that the action was or. was not consistent with gromh man.agement <br />policies, Mr. Yeiter recommended that the Commission submit those concerns independently <br />from the refinement plan recommendation before the Commission. <br /> <br />At M.r. Belcher's suggestion, the Commission tabled further discussion by consensus until a tater <br />time. <br />M~. Harding facilitated a revie'\\>' of changes noted by staff in Attachment C-Stq[f Fil,dings and <br />recorded those comments. She said the City Council would conduct a public hearing on the <br />proposed refinement plan amendments on February 20, 2007. <br /> <br />In response to Mr. Duncan, there, was consensus to include.tbe staff response to the findings <br />raised .at the December 5, 2006 public hearing in the, information for\varded to the City Council. <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Belcher, Ms. Harding stated there were no applications in Area 15 that \~toutd <br />be affected by the proposed ch~nges. <br /> <br />Mr. La\vless, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved that the Planning <br />Cotnmission recommend approval of the Metro Plan Amendment, <br />Refinement Plan Amendment and Code AUlendment as modified in the <br />Planning Commission deliberation. <br /> <br />Tbere\\tRS consensus that the findings would be sent viae-mail all Cot11rnissioners to revie"t and <br />approve. Ms.. Muir reminded Commissioners of a Cit), Attorney directive that the intent of thee- <br />mail communication \vas not to discuss the issue, but only revie\v and approve as subtnitted.Any <br />discussion on the lssue\vould need lobe brought to a Planning C,omnl1ssion meeting. <br /> <br />MlNUrrES-E.ugene Planning Commission <br /> <br />January 8, 2007 <br /> <br />Page 8 <br />