10/24/1983 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

only by the council. Mr. Chenkin said the commission was concerned with e keeping the various processes consistent and that Mr. Holmer's suggestion would require that the council decide who was to hear each appeal. He said that the commission wanted to be involved at the first step if the council wanted to be involved in the appeal. Speaking to Mr. Holmer, Councilor Obie stated that he had not understood Mr. Saul to state he suported an appeal to the council. Councilor Wooten said she appreciated the time spent by staff. She said the Community Involvement Committee had also spent time with the revisions and that the committee felt comfortable with the proposed revisions. She said she was prepared to vote and approve all but the zoning variance revisions. She said the council might want to retain some flexibility and she was not prepared to make a decision on that issue. She asked how that issue might be separated from the balance of the revisions. Mr. Sercombe stated that staff felt that the council should not take action on the ordinance but only hear testimony and provide input to staff on the revisions. He said that staff would then prepare revisions for review by the council in November. Mr. Gleason understood the council.s concern and sensed the council was in agreement except for some ambiguity with regard to zone changes. Speaking to Mr. Holmer's suggestion, he asked if two appeals were necessary. He said it would be more constructive for the council and the commission to discuss major issues in the abstract and then have the Hearings Official or the Planning e Commission carry out the policy directives. He said the council could then call back the commission if the policy directives were not properly followed. In response to a question, Mr. Sercombe said that appeals would be on the basis of the record and that the process was adequate for an applicant to carry on a subsequent appeal. He said an appeal could be carried on to the LUBA and then to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Councilor Wooten said she was concerned that the council provide assistance to businesses. She said that circumstances existed where it would be appropriate for the council to hear a request for variances and that she wanted the council to retain that flexibility without undermining the intent of the planning process in the use of the Hearings Official or the commission. She said the council should look at such opportunities before taking any final vote. Mr. Gleason said that two hearings would be necessary if the council wished to substantively review any request. He said the distinction must be made between zone changes and variances and that any disagreement between the council and the commission would require the joint meeting between the two groups. He again suggested that the council meet with the commission to decide the broader issues. Mr. Sercombe reviewed the process for variances as proposed in the revisions. He said that variances were usually not controversial and usually did not reach the council. He said that rezonings were usually decided on the basis of the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 1983 Page 5