Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

· Fair. The code must recognize there will be a variety of different stakeholder needs that must be met. Negotiations, compromise, balance, and consensus-building must be incorporated into a code revision process and ongoing code applications in order for the code to embody the diverse values of our community. · Additionally, the code should be reviewed on an annual basis. Mr. Coyle noted that Planning Division Director Susan Muir and Principle Planner Steve Nystrom were also present for the item. He commended the work they had done in bringing the item to the council. Mr. Coyle invited questions. Mayor Torrey solicited council questions and comments. Mr. Kelly expressed confusion about the nature of the item, noting the AIS referred in several places to the work task regarding minor amendments to the code adopted as part of the Planning Division's high- priority work program. However, the staff-proposed motion, which was to direct the City Manager to proceed with a process to revise and simplify Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code using the guiding principles referred to in the report accepted by the City Council on April 9, 2004, seemed much broader than that. It seemed to direct staff to go through the entire Chapter 9 of the code. Mr. Coyle indicated the minor amendments would include a review of all of Chapter 9. Mr. Nystrom anticipated that the code review would occur in two phases: 1) minor fixes to the code, which encompassed a review of the entire chapter, and 2) a more strategic examination of focus areas. He noted that the first phase was underway. Ms. Muir added that both phases fell within the scope of the high-priority work item adopted by the City Council. Mr. Kelly suggested the result could be changes to every page of the code. Ms. Muir clarified that staff was not doing a full audit; where it identified problems with the code it was proposing to address them. Mr. Kelly said he needed to see a more finely tuned motion. Mr. Pap6 arrived at the meeting. Mr. Kelly interpreted the committee's recommended guiding principles as economic principles. He said missing from the AlS were the planning principles that would be used in the code review. He asked staff to bring the council a set of planning principles to guide the review. Mr. Coyle indicated that could be done. He noted that the committee had sought input from the Planning Division staff as it developed the principles, and staff believed the principles were consistent with a planning perspective. Mr. Kelly preferred to take no action on the item at this time so staff could prepare a list of planning principles to serve as a further framework for the code review. He suggested that the principles be reviewed by the Planning Commission, as it was his impression from a discussion with a member of the commission that such a review had not occurred. Ms. Muir clarified that the principles were reviewed by the Planning Commission when it had a global discussion of how it would proceed with the code review. She said the commissioner in question may not have understood the source of the principles. Mr. Meisner agreed that further information about the intent of the motion would be useful. Mr. Meisner was unconcerned about the distinction between planning principles and the principles before the council, which appeared to be more focused on how the code actually worked in practice. He recalled the 1996 initiation of the Zoning Code Review, and said the principles under consideration were not MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 2 Work Session