CCMinutes - 10/27/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Nathanson suggested that rather than state the code would be reviewed annually, the last principle should read "Code revisions should be reviewed and processed at least annually." She hoped the code review would include some of the issues that had been brought up in neighborhood association meetings, such as fences. Ms. Solomon agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the recommended principles were intended to improve the process and were an attempt to address constituent requests to make the code more reasonable and flexible. She thought the code was revised with the best of intentions but mistakes had been made. Ms. Solomon said it was okay to make mistakes and okay to fix them, and she thought the guiding principles were a good way to start. She supported the staff-proposed motion. She said that the discussion had begun to feel like council micromanagement to her, and she did not want to take that approach. Mr. Pap~ believed the committee's focus was on both code content and process. He recalled the council's recent discussion with the Planning Commission about an alternate track approach to regulation. Mr. Pap~ encouraged staff to review the work on that issue done by other jurisdictions and to avoid reinventing the wheel. Mr. Pap~ believed the City's growth management principles would guide the review, and further pointed out the council would have to approve any eventual code revisions. Mr. Pap~ asked about the potential of establishing a one-day permitting process. Mr. Poling said the recommended principles did not appear to change the intent of the code but were intended to make the process customer-friendly and flexible. While he had no problem with the staff- proposed motion, he acknowledged that it might require amendment to win more council support. As to the proposed annual review, Mr. Poling suggested that a "bucket file" approach be used so that amendments could be addressed as they arise. He thought the principles allowed Planning Division staff to use their brains to work to solve problems while staying within the law and planning precepts. He encouraged the council to allow that to happen. Mr. Poling said another example of a problem with the code was the issue of "doggy day care," a use which fit nowhere in the code. He also cited as an example of a problem a small bank with a single drive-up window that had been assessed the systems development charges a much larger bank would pay. Referring to a statement in the AIS, Ms. Taylor recalled that the council accepted the report of the committee, but it did not adopt it. She said accepting the report was a matter of good manners. It did not mean the council would implement the report's recommendations. The reference meant nothing. She said it was yet another example of how staff misinterpreted the council's actions to argue the council supported something it did not. Ms. Taylor thought the guiding principles employed good words but they could be interpreted to mean anything. She said the council just completed the code update, and if there were things that needed to be changed, staff should return to the council with a list of them and the reasons they were a problem. She agreed that if the staff-proposed motion were adopted, the result could be no standards at all. She was disturbed by what might be allowed if the motion passed. Mayor Torrey did not think staff was proposing something that the council taking its seat in January 2005 would not accept. He said the more the City could make its codes practical and understandable to the MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 4 Work Session