Item 4: Public Hearing on Ordinance on Minor Land Use Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

) . . -) Ms. Colbath clarified that the time period requirement applied only to Lane County elections. She asked if an election occurred in a county adjacent to Lane County and the issue was one that Lane County residents were interested in, would Lane County residents be prohibited from putting up a sign for that election. Land Use M;anagement Supervisor Mike McKerrow replied that the prohibition would apply as the goal of the language was to prevent candidates from using an election in another county to "jump the gun" and put up signs ahead of other candidates and use another county's election as the reasoning. Ms. Colbath used the example of a proposed action in Linn County that would affect the entire Wil- lamette Valley airshed. She asked if Lane County residents would be prohibited from putting up signs related to that election. Mr. McKerrow replied that for an .election that was happening in another county and in which Lane County residents could not participate, signs could not be put up based on that election date in another county. Mr. Belcher clarified that signs could still be put up prior to a Eugene election if there were any other non-typical elections such as a recall election in Florence. Mr. McKerrow agreed because Florence was in Lane County. EC 9.6630(1). Installation of signs prior to Permit issuance Mr. Hledik asked for clarification of the proposed change from date of approval to date of issuance. Mr. McKerrow explained that the sign was approved by the Building Permit staff and the applicant was contacted to pick up the approved plans. and pay any additional fees, at which point the permit was issued. He said that sometimes applicants were notified of approval but installed the sign before paying the additional fees and obtaining the permit. He said the amendment clarified that the permit had to be in possession before the work was done. Ee 9.7015. Completeness review Mr. Hudspeth requested an explanation of completeness review and how the proposed amendment applied. Mr. Nystrom said the completeness review was the first formal step in the land use application process and consisted of a review of the application to determine that all the materials were present in order for the formal review to proceed. He said the City had 30 days to complete the review and the amendment clarified some changes in State law to ensure consistency. He said that previously State law did not specify the point at which the 120-day time period was triggered and the amendment clarified responsibilities to reply. Mr. Nystrom said that staffwould schedule a future meeting for further deliberations. Mr. Lawless adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 6:50 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) m:\2005lplanning and development departmentlplanning divisionlplanning commissionlpc050517ph.doc MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission Public Hearing . May 17,2005 Page 5