CC Minutes - 05/27/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

findings and conc/usions of the Eugene City Council regarding Whitbeck Knoll (Attachment A). Ms. Bettman believed the PUD process was more important than ever before because it allowed for another public hearing and more expertise in the development process. She said that the PUD process would give the neighbors a chance to feel involved in the process and allow them to voice their concerns at a public hearing. Ms. Taylor also felt it important to give the neighbors all the chances possible to comment, and it was even more important than ever now, given the irregularities that arose in the process. Ms. Nathanson asked if it was possible that a decision to support the PUD process would set a precedent for the future, or was it specific to this situation. Ms. Childs did not anticipate the situation in question would happen frequently. She characterized it as an unusual situation. Mr. Pap~ determined from Ms. Childs that there would be public notice and an opportunity for the residents to comment in writing prior to a final decision on the subdivision application. There was also be an opportunity for appeal. Mr. Pap~ said that while he appreciated the letter the council received from Mr. Anslow, he had supported the subdivision application on the basis of predictability and because of the business climate survey, which indicated that the City did not do a good job in giving developers the certainty they need when they enter into City processes. Mr. Poling said that he reviewed the agenda item summary for the item and the various processes that had gone on. Even without the letters that were removed from the record, he was of the opinion that the Planing Director followed the proper process when she reached her decision that the application should go through the subdivision rather than the PUD process. He supported the motion. Ms. Taylor wanted to give the neighbors all the advantages possible, and advocated for the PUD process. She would have felt better about the process if the letters had been allowed into the record. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting no. C.WORK SESSION: Special Districts Assistant City Manager Carlson joined the council for the item. He reminded the council that the last time it discussed special districts was on November 13, 2001, as part of a larger revenue discussion. At that time, the council agreed it would not go forward with a non-property tax revenue source. During 2002, the council had focused on several financial issues, including the transportation finance issue, the library local option levy, the downtown fire station general obligation bond, and the youth school local option levy. In 2003, as the council worked on the budget, it recognized the structural imbalances that existed, which generated interest in investigating alternative revenue sources, one of which was the special district concept. Special districts are primarily a property tax solution. Because of the overall decline in the local economy, staff had included information on the Ballot Measure 5 compression issue in the packet materials. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 2003 Page 5 Work Session