Laserfiche WebLink
his attorney and left a phone message explaining the attachments. She noted that Mr. Matthews and his <br />attorney did not take the opportunity to meet with City staff. She said that Rob Zako did schedule a meeting <br />and she made a point of contacting Mr. Matthews to participate in that meeting, which he did. She stated that <br />Tom Coyle and Teresa Bishow of the Planning and Development Department and another attorney attended <br />the meeting; the meeting with the homebuilders association and the chamber after the hearing included Mr. <br />Coyle, Ms. Bishow, and herself. <br /> <br />Ms. Jerome said that the revisions in attachments D, E, and F consisted of eight sections that were proposed <br />by citizen interveners, seven changes proposed by City staff or the City Council, and two that were proposed <br />by the homebuilders association. She noted that none of the revisions reflected proposals by the Chamber of <br />Commerce. <br /> <br />Ms. Jerome distributed replacement pages that reflected a drafting problem with Section 9.6010 on page 65 <br />of the meeting packet. She said Mr. Kelly's motion would reflect those replacement pages. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for comments from the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly requested a preliminary draft of the information on the remanded code issues before the July 8, <br />2002, meeting with the Eugene Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said the day's meeting was just the first step in addressing the remand of the Land Use Code <br />Update (LUCU). He said the easy-to-restore-parts would be addressed first. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding in what ways the City would be "worse ofF' than before <br />LUCU came into effect, Senior Planner Teresa Bishow said, in general, updated standards that provided <br />clarity but appeared to change the level of protection of a natural resource were no longer part of the updated <br />code. She said staff were reinstating as much protection for natural resources as possible in the action before <br />the council at that meeting. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman expressed her preference for a phased approach to address the remand issues. She suggested <br />addressing the easiest parts first. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman confirmed with Planning Director Jan Childs that some of the provisions in the new LUCU <br />would actually provide for additional housing opportunities. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson expressed her unhappiness with the way West 11th Avenue was developing regarding the sign <br />code. She remarked that there had been little improvement since her time on the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson stressed that she was not interested in re-arguing LUCU. She said the provisions that staff <br />and council were trying to put back in place reflected a huge amount of compromise and work. She <br />commented that her interest was only in re-establishing the code that had been put in place as expeditiously as <br />possible. <br />In response to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding whether there could be a retroactive adoption of LUCU <br />provisions, Ms. Jerome said there was a State law that the applicant had to abide by the criterion standards <br />that were in effect when the application was filed. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 8, 2002 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />