CC Minutes - 10/14/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

code text. Public comments were being taken at the commission's work sessions, plus written comments were still being received. Mr. Conrad said the interrelatedness of the code sections had slowed down the pace of the review which was part of the reason for the request. The commission has also made substantial changes to the code which had been time-consuming. Mr. Conrad said three of the four groups who commented on LUCU have voiced their support for the process and the extension. The commission has had a heavy workload with the Arterial Street Collector Plan, the TransPlan update, appeal hearings, and the Residential Land Study, plus regular business. He said all these reasons were part of the request for an extension. Mr. Meisner stressed the importance of sequencing in the review. The council had acknowledged that the Lane Use Code was the implementation tool for the growth management policies. He said he would approve the extension, but wanted to preserve the option of fast tracking some items. He discussed site review and legal notice. Ms. Nathanson noted that some permitting activities were very objective, while some were more subjective or discretionary. The community and the council issues had changed since the code was enacted 30 years ago, so the question was when judgement or discretion was allowed, would current values and concerns be addressed or would the code as written prevail. City Attorney Glenn Klein said if the area was one with discretionary authority, his office would advise staff that any action within the range of discretion that the council had granted was legal. Staff might impose different conditions today then it did several years ago, yet both were within the range of acceptable conditions. He said this was a policy question that the Planning Commission could change. Ms. Childs stated that discretionary land use decisions usually required a public hearing and action by a hearings official. Each case must follow the same approval criteria, but the facts were different which would be why the review of appropriate conditions changed over time. Ms. Nathanson commented that because overarching growth management policies had been adopted, she would anticipate that their implementation was proceeding. Mr. Conrad said the commission had tried to do that in the hearings. Public comments had supported prescriptive rules with some flexibility and public review, and the commission had been trying to go in that direction. Mr. Laue supported an extension, particularly in light of the volume of material to be reviewed and updated. He said he was not particularly concerned about development pressure in the next few months. Ms. Taylor said opportunities were being lost each day the code was not implemented. She said fast tracking should be considered if an extension was given. She wanted to have all the items proposed for fast tracking reviewed, especially the establishment of a maximum lot size for Iow- density residential lots. Mr. Fart said more time was appropriate, and he was reluctant to turn down the request to not fast track because it might be confusing to review sections out of order. Mr. Meisner said the MINUTES-Eugene City Council October 14, 1998 Page 4 11:30 a.m.