Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pap8 supported Mr. Kelly's suggestion that the commission review the remanded items. He <br />suggested it would save the council time. He hoped the council would respect the commission's <br />deliberations. <br /> <br />Mr. Lawless said that he appreciated Ms. Bettman's concern, but pointed out that the Land Use <br />Code Update provided for an adjustment review process, an internal methodology for getting <br />minor clarifications resolved so a project can move forward. He thought it made sense to have a <br />process whereby a developer could benefit from what had been learned on other projects, and the <br />adjustment review approval could eventually be rolled into the code. Mr. Coyle added that the City <br />needed to give clear direction to the development community. He said that no matter how often <br />staff looked at the code, frequently a new development was proposed that did not fit the code. He <br />said that those projects could be addressed on an annual basis or could be added to a list to <br />review later. Without an institutionalized way to make changes, the changes would not be made. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs recalled that in the past, the City had packaged annual minor code amendments. That <br />gave the City an opportunity to fix things that were not working on a regular basis. She noted that <br />the minor amendments under consideration now were still in the omissions and errors category. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey endorsed an annual review as proposed and believed that the council promised the <br />community it would do so. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said the council discussed the issue of unintended consequences as a result of the <br />new code. He recalled the Duncan-Foote proposal for the existing library parking lot, where <br />application of the new code made the proposal difficult to implement. He wanted an annual <br />review, as he wanted to know where the code was preventing good development, which it did too <br />often. Developers were telling him that the new code made more good development almost <br />impossible, while a typical subdivision was very easy to do. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to approve the FY03 Planning <br /> Commission work program, including the FY03 Historic Review Board work <br /> program. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman believed the minor amendments process had become a wholesale attempt to roll <br />back provisions of the code she believed were important for infill development and smart growth. <br />She said that the process described for amendments was very exclusive. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct to the City Manager to <br />amend the Planning Commission's fiscal year 2002 work program to modify <br />the minor amendments packages under the Land Use Permits service <br />category to read: "Tune-up amendments be processed no more than <br />annually; any proposed amendments to be based on an inclusive process for <br />public input as well as staff experience with implementing the new code." <br />Ms. Bettman said the amended process would allow problems and issues to be addressed in an <br />inclusive manner, involving the people who were going to have to live with the changes, such as <br />homeowners and neighbors. She believed that even with the amendment, it would be difficult for <br />the public to keep up with all the changes proposed and made, and only after 20 years had <br />passed would people realize their neighborhood had changed for the worse and their investment <br />in their house had been reduced. Ms. Bettman believed that the proposed process would create <br />a situation of "continuously moving goal posts" that did not allow for any predictability for the <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 2002 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />