Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend Ordinance 1 to retain site <br /> review requirements by eliminating Section 40 and amending Section 42 to <br /> eliminate 9.8430(4). <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor arrived at the meeting. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for council comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that site review requirements were proposed to be eliminated because the council <br />thought the conditional use permit (CUP) requirements were a strict superset of site review <br />requirements, so that if one satisfied the CUP requirements, the site review requirements were <br />satisified as well. Staff research indicated there were differences in the requirements established <br />through the conditional use permit process and through the site review process. He hoped at <br />some time there would be a sort of "super conditional use permit" that included the site review <br />criteria so that two applications were not needed. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ determined from Ms. Bishow that the approval criteria for the two processes overlap to <br />some degree. The site review criteria were very similar to the CUP criteria, but there were distinct <br />differences. She confirmed that the City provided for a reduced fee if the two application types <br />were processed concurrently; it was about a 25 percent reduction in the cost of the second <br />application. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said he was contacted by a constituent who had a planned unit development (PUD) <br />application approved under the old code. He asked if that PUD was subject to appeal under the <br />new code. <br /> <br />Ms. Jerome said that there were generally two steps in the PUD process, the PUD approval <br />process and the subdivision approval process. The legal issue was whether the applicant was <br />vested to use the old code subdivision process. She suggested that the answer was a case-by- <br />case determination. There was no direction from the courts on the issue. Ms. Jerome thought it <br />likely the City could process the subdivision application under the old code. She said that the <br />applicant in question had legitimate concerns that if the subdivision was appealed, there would be <br />some question about that issue. She suggested that the City needed to take a definite position on <br />how it would process such applications. Mayor Torrey asked how the council should proceed. <br />Ms. Bishow said that the issue could be folded into the code amendments now being considered <br />by the Eugene Planning Commission. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend Ordinance 1 to delete <br /> sections 14, 31, 34, and 37 concerning nodal development procedures. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly determined from Ms. Childs that adoption of the motion would not delay the City's work <br />on the eight remaining nodal priority areas. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend Ordinance 3, Section 1, to <br /> clarify the property ownership requirements for secondary dwellings as <br /> follows: "Prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit for the secondary <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 13, 2002 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />