CC Minutes - 04/28/03 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Nathanson asked if there were other differences between the PUD and subdivision process, and what harm there was to the City if it chose a process other than the standard subdivision. Ms. Hansen said the main difference was there was no public hearing under the subdivision process. However, there was public notice sent to all surrounding property owners, the neighborhood association, as well as a public comment period during which residents could submit written comments for staff review and consideration. There was also an appeal process. During the final subdivision process, there was another public notice period and opportunity to appeal. There was also a performance agreement and final site plan approval. She noted that in the case of the PUD, the Hearings Official made the initial decision. Councilor Nathanson said that Ms. Hansen's remarks explained why the Planning Commission concluded there was no substantial differences in the process chosen and that it appeared to be adequate. She said that she had heard nothing to persuade her that there was any harm in choosing a process that gave residents an opportunity to present oral testimony as opposed to written testimony. Ms. Hansen said that staff had examined the issues that had been raised, and the criteria for the subdivision and PUD were nearly identical and would receive the same level of scrutiny. Councilor Bettman referred to the criteria and said that some of them seemed very subjective and discretionary. She asked how the staff used the criteria when determining which site review procedures to use. Ms. Hansen referred her to page 268 of the packet, which included the director's response to each criteria. Councilor Bettman asked how, for example, one evaluated the nature of the surrounding land. Ms. Hansen referred her to the staff analysis. Councilor Bettman asked for the legal standing of the road agreement. Ms. Hansen said that it was not germane to the issue. Councilor Bettman asked if it was a legal issue for the City, and how it would be addressed through the process. Councilor Bettman voiced her support of infill development, however, it was predicated on compatibility with the surrounding area. She asked if the commission believed that a public hearing would not bring forward any new issues, and was therefore not a useful exercise. Ms. Hansen indicated she would followup. Councilor Bettman noted that the staff report indicated the developer could choose to do a partition and avoid either process, and wondered why that was not the developer's choice. Ms. Hansen responded that the developer chose to apply for a subdivision permit because that was what the developer was proposing to construct. Councilor Pap6 asked for information about the location of the nearest City storm sewer connection, whose responsibility it would be to connect this area of the community, and why the City had not installed storm sewers as was typically done in other areas. He said that drainage appeared to be a major issue for the neighbors, and he hoped the City could work through another process to solve the area's drainage issues. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 9 Regular Meeting