Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

appeal, but it was likely that the University of Oregon would appeal that decision. He asked staff to explain what that meant in terms of the timing regarding the process and the hearing. Lisa Gardner, Planning Director for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), explained that the difference in the process was that before the CUP, if something was an outright permitted use it would have moved forward with a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) and the only public hearing process would have been for the alley vacation. She stated that the CUP process, which had been put into place when the Hearings Official had overturned the Planning Director’s decision, meant that everything came before the Planning Commission in a public hearing. Councilor Zelenka asked about the timing. Ms. Gardner replied that this was not known because staff had not heard anything from the University in regard to their next steps in filing an application. She said a CUP could take from three to six months to process. Councilor Zelenka noted that the issue was controversial. He believed that the land issues around the proposed arena were one big issue with a “bunch of different parts.” He had been working with the University’s neighbors on an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). He thought it would be premature for the council to take action at this point. Mayor Piercy asked if this would create a timing issue. Ms. Gardner asked Steve Ochs, Associate Planner, to speak to the timing issue. She noted that there would be two separate public hearings as the alley vacation was a separate process that would proceed independ- ently of the CUP process. She said there was a consideration of the public interest in the council decision on whether or not to approve the alley vacation. Mr. Ochs was not sure if there was a legal timing issue. He thought what might be important was that the alley vacation could be considered when looking at the CUP approval. He clarified that the public hearing on the CUP would go to the Hearings Official first and would go before the Planning Commission on appeal. Mayor Piercy asked if there were any implications to delaying the decision. Ms. Gardner replied that there was not a timing reason why this could not happen. She noted that in setting a public hearing date the council was providing an opportunity for people to give information to the council and by the time that date arrived a lot more could be known about the project. She was not certain there would be any harm in setting the date. Councilor Zelenka did not want to have the public hearing before the discussion of the CUP. Councilor Taylor said this made sense to her. City Attorney Jerry Lidz stated that the decision would be to not schedule the public hearing at this time. He said it would come back before the council when the CUP process was underway. City Manager Jon Ruiz asked what the purpose of delaying the public hearing would be. Councilor Zelenka responded that his interest lay in having the public and the council be informed by the CUP process. Councilor Solomon asked if it was the University’s expectation that this would proceed and whether postponing the hearing would change the “goalposts” for the University. Ms. Gardner replied that the MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 8 Regular Meeting