CC Minutes - 02/26/01 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Meisner clarified that items 1 and 2 referred to the Type II process. He asked about the notice provided in that process. Ms. Bishow said notice was provided to the neighborhood organization and to nearby property owners and neighbors. The proposed change would eliminate the notice as well as the appeal process. Councilor Kelly said that if all the standards were clear and objective he would agree with Councilor Nathanson, but a certain number of them had a level of subjectivity. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend the amendment to the motion by deleting items 1, 2, and 6. Councilor Nathanson suggested that developers be required to place large visible billboards with information regarding proposed development on their development sites as was done in other cities. She thought it would be a more useful form of notice than posting or mailing notices. Ms. Bishow noted that the draft code called for large display signs to be posted for certain types of land use applications, such as site reviews and tentative subdivisions. Such signs were not suggested for the standards review process. Responding to a question from Councilor Pap~, Ms. Bishow explained how notice for the Type II process would work. Responding to a question from Councilor Meisner, Ms. Bishow said the only enabling legislation that required standards review for multi-family housing was included in Section 9.8465, which Councilor Kelly's motion would delete. Councilor Nathanson reiterated that a large display sign would be more effective in providing public notice than the City's traditional public notice procedure. She wished to extend the current code provisions for large display signs to include multi-family commercial development. Mr. Klein strongly urged the council to give direction to staff if it wished to make further changes to the code rather than attempting to craft policy "on the fly." Rayor said that he was interested in placing the burden of providing notice on the developer, which could save the City staff time and money. Councilor Bettman said that given the fact that otherwise the neighbors would lose their right to appeal along with their right of notice, she supported the amendment to the motion. Councilor Pap8 asked what recourse citizens would have if they felt a developer was not complying with the design standards. Ms. Jerome responded that there would be no recourse through the land use process, but a building permit could be appealed through a writ of review. Councilor Pap~ believed the council was overlapping the concept of design review with the concept of design standards. He suggested the City needed to go one direction or the other. If the City had clear and objective standards, he did not support adding a review process that included public notice. Councilor Meisner said he tended to agree with Councilor Pap~. When he considered the implications of the Type II review procedure, he anticipated appeals on every large commercial MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 9 Regular Meeting