05/09/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. Mr. Saul told Council that while one of the major amendments was the transfer of the PUDs to a Hearings Official, there were a number of other amendments to increase better functioning of the PUDs, such as housekeeping changes. He noted the requested amendment represented nine months of experience of the staff time to date with a new ordinance and that these changes would substantially improve the ordinance. Public hearing was opened. Sharon Posner, 2473 Columbia Street, spoke as a representative of the League of Lane County Women Voters, which was opposed, in part, to the new amendment. The League was aware of the workload of the Planning Commission, but felt that the Planning Commission should be continually aware of PUD growth. The League felt that off-site considera- tions were much more likely to be determined by subjective analysis and would greatly affect the neighborhood areas. The League suggested the Planning Commission hear the diagrammatic phase and the Hearings Official handle the preliminary phase of PUD developments. Another concern of the League was the additional cost involved. She reiterated the League's stance that the public would best be served by the Plan- ning Commission review of the diagrammatic stage. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. e Mr. Lieuallen questioned how many proposed PUDs had been denied in the nine-month trial period. Mr. Saul replied there had been 25 PUD applications considered, none had been denied, and one approval appeal had been upheld by the City Council. Mr. Lieuallen then questioned the cost, whether the Hearings Official would save or cost more money. Mr. Saul replied he did not have definitive cost estimates, that such a cost estimate would represent a guess as to how many applications would be received and that would be hard to estimate at this time. He said the cost figure in this year's budget for the Hearings Official would be an increase of $5,000. However, the cost would be recovered through the charges for processing applications. He reported that the experience through the use of Hearings Official in the conditional use permits had resulted in a lower processing cost per application for the staff because of the efficiency. Mr. Lieuallen then asked if his understanding was correct that it would not be a terrific increase, but only about $5,000 for a Hearings Official and not $20,000 or $30,000. Mr. Saul said no that that the $5,000 increase was the only one projected which would be reduced by the fee charges. He said the problem with -a legitimate cost analysis was that the City recognized the Hearings Official would cost money, but it was judged that the City would achieve benefits because the Planning Commission would be able to spend more time in policy planning. e C. B. 1473--Amending City Code re: Planned Unit Development regu- lations; amending Sections 2.370, 9.509, 9.510, 9.512, and 9.514 of Code, 1911; and declaring an emergency was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. 5/9/77--9 3l:,'f