|
<br />-
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />/'Coun~ilman Keller was doubtful about the residency :r,equirement for voting eligibility.
<br />. , in thp. Active Bethel Citizens charter. He vlasn't sure that was proper when all the. \
<br />other charters' did not have that :t'estriction and ailowed property owners or commerclal \
<br />tenants to vote. Councilma~Williams agreed but stated two conditions: The groups
<br />were citizen associations and as such they made the decisions as to eligible voters, not
<br />the Council; ,and in practically no other instance ,did a citizen vote where he was.not a
<br />resident. Councilman Murray also agreed that it seemed faire~ to allow those ownlng
<br />property'or commercial interests in an area to vote, bu~ ~e added that t~ere was no .'
<br />violation of n~ighborhood organization policy and the cltlzens had the rlght to set thelr.
<br />
<br />own v<?_t~!l~g_ ~~i_tE?r~~...:...... ~~,__,_,,,,,;,,_,,_'~'_~.._.~._..,_.__...... _ ____.___.~~
<br />
<br />~s. Ruddy, 3614 Agate Street, said their organization~ Oak Hills Homeowners ~
<br />:Association, did not wish to amend the title by deleting the work "Homeowners".,
<br />iCouncil had no objection to the title remaining as the members wanted it up0n ,;
<br />iassurance that the charter did provide that anyone living ~n the area, property ;
<br />!owner or renter, would be eligible to vote. r
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />i
<br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the requirement for name ,I
<br />change be deleted from Council action for approval, leaving the name "Oak
<br />Hills Homeowners Association". Motion carried unanimously, Mr. Wood no}: ....
<br />
<br />pr~.:;;eDt !.___. "~.--"- ~:__",~""_"_",,-,,,,,,,,_-,,:,,'''---:;;;.-:':c.:,~':::-;:''::-''-'''!'''',-'::-;'."-"-"--'-" ,...-~.-'-- '-..' -----.--.-
<br />
<br />D. )it:ea-wide Planning Co-ordination, S.B.100 - Copies of letter from Lane .Council of
<br />Governments were previously distributed to Council m~rs requesting,the Council
<br />to advise Lane County its desires with regard to responsibility for planning in
<br />this area - whether it should lie withLCOG or with the County. S.1J.lOOallows
<br />the county to function as the do-ordinating agency, and in absence of planning
<br />action by cities the county would automatically function in that capacity or es-
<br />:tablish a regional agency such as LCOG. Lane County Commissioners have not yet
<br />decla,red their intention and would like to have recommendations f!.om dities in the
<br />,county. Manager suggested that unless Council members felt it unnecessary the
<br />;LCOG request be referred to the Planning Commission for recommendation and input.
<br />
<br />!Councilman Wood noted that this was an item for discussion at the next LCOG meeting
<br />:and wondered if Planning Commission recommendation would be received prior to that
<br />:time. Consensus was that; action at the May 20 Commission'meeting.could be brought
<br />'to the Council at its May 22 committee meeting in time for referral to LCOG's May 23.
<br />lu,eeting.
<br />
<br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs.
<br />sponsibility for area-wide planning
<br />for recommendation. Motion carried
<br />
<br />'. Co.mm
<br />,5'V8/74
<br />Approve
<br />
<br />Beal to refer the quest~on of re-
<br />function to the Planning Commission
<br />unanimously.
<br />
<br />i
<br />I
<br />I
<br />Ell' ..
<br />. ;P ann~ng Comm~ss~on
<br />!Planning .Commission
<br />
<br />Report - April 15, 1974
<br />recommended code amendments which would:
<br />
<br />:A. Delete" filing fees" from the code and provide for adoption of fee schedules
<br />by resolution; and
<br />
<br />.B. Add "hearings official" and "site review committee" to the statement with
<br />regard to fee refund denials.
<br />
<br />,!The Commission also suggested that the Council give special consideration to con-
<br />itrolled income/rent housing and certain social service conditional use permits
<br />'in its deliberations on revision of the fee schedule. A table on fee information
<br />was forwarded with the Commission report.
<br />
<br />I.
<br />
<br />Manager explained that the amendment with regard to denial of fee refund was recom-
<br />mended on the basis that funds derived from f~es cover the costs of advertising
<br />:and staff time applied to applications and would accrue regardless of whether an
<br />!application'was granted or denied, therefore the fee should not be refunded. He
<br />:added that revision of the fee schedule would be an item for consideration of the
<br />icommittee appointed earlier in this meeting.
<br />
<br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the code amendments be
<br />scheduled on the next Council agenda for consideration.
<br />
<br />, .
<br />
<br />!councilwoman Campbell' suggested that instead of deleting filing fees from the code
<br />;there should be provision for charges in terms of percentage of costs involved in
<br />!processing applications. She felt that method instead of setting a specific figure
<br />:~ould obviate changing fee schedules, each time.
<br />
<br />. .-.-.--, ~...A....t.._ a..__,,- _ _ __.__.~..__.....~_..._.._____... -----.-._..._._.___ __. '___"._'_'.~ _.__~~,__.__________
<br />
<br />\ Ic?~~~<
<br />~~-
<br />
<br />5/20/74 -17
<br />
|