Laserfiche WebLink
addressing the urban transition area. Regarding 2.090(5), he opined it was ridiculous for someone to be <br />granted a land use waiver that was non-transferable to a new owner. <br /> <br />Councilor Poling noted that the Lane Board of County Commissioners would not be having its first public <br />hearing until December 8. He questioned the necessity of rushing this ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein pointed out that the urban transition area was not something the City Council had control over as <br />it was under the jurisdiction of Lane County. <br /> <br />Councilor Nathanson agreed that the City should provide a firm amount for fees. She felt the council was in <br />agreement with this and wondered if an amendment should be offered or whether a vote on the ordinance <br />should be considered. She thought it would be prudent to defer the vote until November 24 in order to allow <br />the City Attorney time to craft amendment language. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey supported placing a cap on the fees. He was unprepared to vote on the ordinance as it was an <br />important decision and should not be made %n the rush." He expressed concern about the language that <br />made land use variances non-transferable. He opined that voters, had they completely understood the <br />implications, would not have voted such a clause into law. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey remained convinced that the council had heard heartfelt concerns from two sides of the issue <br />and encouraged the council to listen to both sides. He thought the existence of Ballot Measure 37 was a <br />result of people being unwilling to reason with one another in the Oregon Legislature. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor shared his recommendation to adopt the ordinance and then let staff and the City <br />Attorney return after the first of the year with thoughtful changes guided by research and public input. <br /> <br />Councilor Pap6 stated that he was unwilling to proceed without a cap on fees. He asked who would be <br />required to pay the prevailing party fees. Mr. Klein replied that, should the neighbor prevail, the claimant <br />was required to pay the fee in a private cause of action, but that there was no language assigning the <br />responsibility for the fee in the reverse scenario. <br /> <br /> Councilor Pap6, seconded by Councilor Meisner, moved to table the <br /> agenda item until Wednesday, November 24. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly did not think the council would have better information at the work session that it did not <br />already have. He opposed tabling the item. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman called it a fiduciary responsibility to have a process in place to manage the complaints <br />that would likely result from the ballot measure. She predicted that the City would be defenseless against a <br />;;rash of claims" on December 2 without the ordinance. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor opined that nothing would be accomplished by delaying the vote until November 24. She <br />foresaw many possible amendments to add to the ordinance as the ramifications of the measure were better <br />understood. <br /> <br />Councilor Nathanson agreed that some of the issues that were troubling her colleagues had to do with the <br />language of the ballot measure and would be worked through in the courts. However, while the ordinance <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 13 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />