Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to require the City Manager to retain a consultant to verify statements in applications and to charge a fee sufficient to cover the cost of retaining the consultant. Mr. Lidz clarified that he had placed a slightly modified version of the ordinance that simply corrected a typographical error in the caption referring to the Eugene Code number. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for the quick turnaround. He called it a very technical evaluation process and averred it would benefit from analysis by a knowledgeable consultant. He thought it important to put this into place at the present meeting and suggested it could be modified when revisited. Mr. Meisner indicated he would likely support the motion. He asked if there were many choices for consultants in the area. Planning Division Manager Susan Muir replied that there were no such consult- ants in the Eugene area. She stated that the Planning and Development Department (PDD) had found one consultant in North Carolina and this was the one being employed on the current application. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct the City Manager to recommend to the City Council additional amendments to Eugene Code 9.5750 regarding increased setbacks, more specific criteria for granting a variance if a variance was legally required, and minimum re- quirements and conditions for a provider to meet in order to be eligible to construct a cell tower in the City. Mr. Meisner asked what cost was involved in the motion. City Manager Taylor said the first thing that staff would do would be to return with a PDD work plan and discuss how this item weighed against the other items in the work plan. Ms. Nathanson was not inclined to support the motion. She supported the recommendation of the Planning Commission, which she felt looked at the complexity of the situation and the inter-relationships between the different parts of the code and its relationship with federal and State law and understood it. She averred there would be significant costs to reviewing the code. She advised against picking out a few sections of the code for revision as they might not meld with the code in its entirety and all of the different elements of the technology it governed. She commended the information provided by staff, stating that it was excellent. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Ms. Muir explained that no time had been scheduled on the tentative agenda for the PDD work program because staff was waiting for more clarity on the periodic review from the State. City Manager Taylor added that he would like to have the benefit of the Council Goals retreat so that could be reflected in the specifics of the proposal for PDD. He projected that it would be scheduled in March 2005. Mr. Kelly asked the City Manager if he could commit to that date. City Manager Taylor stated that he could. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment that would re-craft the motion to say "include this in the list when the Planning Division work plan was re- viewed." Ms. Bettman did not accept the friendly amendment. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 3 Work Session