CC Minutes - 07/22/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly referred to the remand schedule and said he would have hoped for more timely adoption but expressed acceptance of the time line if it could be adhered to. He asked staff to let the council know if the schedule slipped. Mr. Kelly did not want to lengthen the time line for the remand process and acknowledged the commission's full work program, but he wanted the commission to review the staff recommendations regarding the remanded items. Ms. Colbath and Ms. McMillan indicated willingness to do so. Ms. McMillan noted that the remand was to the council, not the commission. Ms. Childs reminded the council that the commission saw the materials related to the remand as a status report. She proposed to do the same in this situation. She was concerned about the potential delay in getting the LUBA items remanded readopted. Mr. Kelly indicated he would move to amend the motion adopting the commission's work program to ensure that at least one commission meeting was dedicated to the topic of the remanded items. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Nathanson about the special project, which he termed "density done right." Ms. Nathanson asked if there was time in the work program for a hot topic if one came up, such as the PeaceHealth proposal. Ms. Childs said such projects caused other projects to be put on hold. Ms. Nathanson recalled that council actions in the past in response to emerging issues had the effect of inadvertently but significantly changing the commission's work plan. Ms. Nathanson referred to the work item regarding reestablishing home ownership in the West University Neighborhood, and she asked if the commission had discussed working on that issue in collaboration with the University and major employers or commercial groups in the area so the effort was not solely a City effort. Ms. Childs said that the item was also related to the West University Scoping Report, which placed emphasis on a collaborative improvement. In regard to the topic of density, Ms. Nathanson asked if the commissioners had the benefit of going through the visual preference survey. She found the exercise to be beneficial in explaining complex topics. Ms. Childs said that the commission could be provided with copies of the final report. She confirmed, in response to a question from Ms. McMillan, there was a slide show associated with the survey, and she would see if she could locate it. Referring to the mention of the minor amendments package on page 16 of the council packet, Ms. Bettman asked how many more minor amendments staff was working on. Ms. Bishow said that there were at least 30 code sections that were impacted; the majority were clarifications, but staff would ask the council to revisit a couple of its policy choices. Ms. Childs indicated the materials would be coming to the council in multiple ordinances to distinguish between the changes made for clarification and the policy-related changes. Ms. Bettman said that it appeared the minor amendments package was going ahead of other council priorities, and a completely new proposal to address them was being suggested in the work program. She objected that the new process was to include staff and users of the code and did not include the general public, and that the process was not developed at the direction of the council. She indicated she would offer an amendment to the motion adopting the work program to address her concern. In response to Ms. Bettman's remarks, Mr. Coyle responded that the recommendation for an annual tuneup to the zoning ordinance was forwarded by both himself and Ms. Childs. He said it was an important but not an urgent maintenance component of the ordinance. He thought it just made good sense. The investment in the document in terms of time and public hearings created a need for a system to maintain the quality of the document. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 2002 Page 7 Work Session