Item 3: Ordinance Concerning Jefferson/Far West Plan Amendments

Home Browse Search

l- LL. <( a:: c judicial land use decision, and w~s at'a loss to on how to speak to legislative matters. He was concerned tbat during the interim period, ifsomeone \vanted to develop large parcels, they \vould limited or prohibited from doing so, so that they could have only one structure on a lot regardless of the lot size. He sought for c.Jarification on the issue. Addressing Mr. Biggs testimony regarding the public hearing format, Mr. Yeiter asserted that this was a land use action, so that the criteria~ testimony, and decision making process was tbe same as that for a land use applications, for \'vhich Mr. Bigg,shad'testified for in the past Mr. Veiter explained that the difference between legislative and quasi-judicial \vas that f04f quasi:iudicial, if there was an applicant, perSOll or small body of people who stood to benefitb.y a. decision,.the..rules ch.ange slightl)' s~ that it was set'up.more like a judicial judge process, with more separation so that the applicant was notun.duly influencing the decisiol1 makers. In this case, \\tith hundreds of properties, the legislative process was appropriate. Mr. Yeiter concurred with Mr. Belcher's statement tIlat a legislative process wrote the la\v, while a quasi-judicial process int.erpreted the la\\'. Responding the t\1r.Hledik, Mr. Yeiter confirmed that it was appropriate 'for Comnlissioners to ask 'q.uestions of those testifying. Paul Conte, 1461 West Tenth Avenue, identified himself as co-chair of the J\VN and said he was speaking on behalf of the neighborhood association. He said the J\VN 'voted unanilnously on September 12, 2006, to recommend approval of tIle ,proposed plan and co4e alnendments. Neighborhood support for the proposals was broad and. deep. Petitions'signed b)To\ler 135 residents of Area 15, ov~er 100 people ill other J\\~ areas, al1d almost 100 peo:ple froflloutside the J\VN had been submitted. He said COUllCii support was clear v'lith six Councilors \Toting to illitiate the amen.dments.He said critical facts included this \vasnot a dOwll...zoningaction, no property \vouid have ZOlle ch.anged by the.a,n1.el1dnlellts. The planaluendments ,;vould reUlovea majordiscrepa,nc)r bet\veen. the plan's current designations and tbe area's existing zonillg of de"velopment. Oftl1.e approximately 255 residential properties in Area 15, all but sev'ellwerezone,dR-l.Tlle proposed atnendn1.ents vvere temporary and vvould sunset ill about 18 nlonths. Tlleir MINUTES~Euget1e Plann.ing Cornrnission Public Hearing December 5, 2006 Page 5