Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Rayor endorsed Mr. Meisner's request for analysis of the testimony and suggested a matrix be <br />developed. He wanted to ensure that those with substantive and relevant comments were heard. <br />He wanted to leave a legislative record that demonstrated adequate public input. Ms. Jerome <br />clarified that the City was providing more opportunity for input than the law proscribed. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ reiterated his concerns about taking action immediately following the hearing. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey wanted the parties to work out the contested issues between them, and encouraged <br />further negotiations with the interveners' attorneys. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked how the code adopted in August 2001 was working, and how soon the council <br />would see amendments to that ordinance. In regard to the second part of the question, Ms. <br />Childs said that staff had developed a series of amendments for the Planning Commission's <br />review, but that work was suspended when the code was remanded. She anticipated that staff <br />would return to the council at a later work session with the remaining work to be done to the code, <br />and request the council assign priorities to those work items. How fast work progressed was a <br />resource and scheduling issue. In regard to how the new code was working, Ms. Childs thought it <br />had been working rather well, although additional needed amendments had been identified. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked if Ms. Childs thought the City was at risk if it did not move forward with <br />adoption that evening. Ms. Childs did not think the City was at risk. She believed that the longer <br />the City delayed, the more applications would be received under the old code, and the more <br />confusing it would be for the public and staff at the Permit and Information Center's Permit <br />Counter. People solicit staff advice, and it was difficult to provide advice on how to structure an <br />application working under two codes. She emphasized the difficulty of giving good advice in such <br />a situation. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked if legal counsel believed that there was common ground that could be <br />reached with the appellants. Ms. Jerome noted that the City heard no response from the <br />appellants until earlier that day. Mr. Klein said that of the comments he had received, it appeared <br />that the appellants' concerns were targeted not at Ordinance 1, but rather at Ordinance 2 or <br />Ordinance 3. He anticipated the council would know more about those concerns and how close <br />the parties were to common ground later that evening following the public hearing. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for a third round of comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested that the City Council could adopt only Ordinance 1 that evening and postpone <br />action on ordinances 2 and 3. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly believed that the continued threats and discussion of potential litigation against the City <br />represented a sign of the decline of civilization in the community. He asked why, if the Chamber <br />of Commerce had a problem with a paragraph in one of the ordinances, did the chamber not <br />come to the council with a request for a change. He noted that when problems were identified <br />with the sections related to imperious surfaces, panhandle lots, and driveway widths, the council <br />took action within a month of the effective date of the code to remedy the problems that were <br />pointed out. He said in a civilized community, people should bring their issues to the council for a <br />legislative remedy because that was what the council was in place for. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly reviewed the two motions prepared at his request. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 2002 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />