05/09/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Manager noted the Council had considered the questions and the staff had prepared a statement, that representatives of the staff and Metro- pOlitan Sewer System had met until 5:30 this evening to make changes suggested. He noted that statement would be distributed for discussion at the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting on May 11, and with approval of the Council, the statement would be transmitted to the Lane County Commis- sioners Wednesday afternoon. Mayor Keller noted that Mr. Manela should convey to the Lane County Commissioners that Council would have a report Wednesday, May 11. Com 5/4/77 Pub Hrg III. Review with Planning Commission Amendments to Zoning Code (PUD); Sections 9.509-9.514 (Proposed changes and information distributed)-- Assistant Manager noted at the last time this proposal was discussed it was decided the Planning Commission should be represented so that both sides of the issue could be presented to Council before a decision was made. -- James Bernhard, Planning Commission, reviewed for Council the extensive study and work that the Planning Commission had done in regard to the revised PUD ordinance. He noted that one of those revisions was to have the Planning Commission hear PUD appli- cations. It was tried for a nine-month period of time which ended in March, at which time a hearing was held regarding transfer of the PUD hearing process from the Planning Commission to a Hear- ings Official. Written testimony from the Homeowners Building Association in Eugene approved the change. Verbal testimony from the League of Women Voters opposed the change. He said after lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission had voted 4-3 in favor of making the change. The reasons given for the persons voting in favor were as follows: 1) it would reduce the Planning Commission's workload; 2) it could consequently reduce City costs; 3) it would provide more efficient use of staff time; 4) it would eliminate delays in PUD requests; and 5) it would provide more time for policy planning by the Planning Commission. He noted the new ordinance was working very well. . Allen Maxwell, Planning Commission, gave the reasons for opposing the change. Those opposing had concurred that time might be saved and there might be greater efficiency of staff time, which could result in savings for the City. However, it was felt by the members opposing the change that the Planning Commission should retain the PUD control. The reasons given were: 1) that the Planning Commis- sioners are willing to give their time on Planning Commission processes and it was felt there are other areas that could be given up rather than this primary area of PUD approvals. It was felt seven members should be making the decision, rather than just one person, as the decisions for the PUD's had a great impact on many large areas of the community. He noted the Planning Commission took an advocate role which would bring out better a type of development for the City; (2) that the proposed appeal process puts the Planning Commission members in a position of having to prove the City staff wrong on value judgments which would be hard to do; (3) that there is a need for citizen checks and balances on the City 380 5/9/77 --25