CC Minutes - 05/14/01 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Kelly spoke to the representatives of the homebuilders association and Chamber of Commerce present at the meeting, saying that everyone has to live together in the community. He said that there were a lot of good things in the Land Use Code Update, as acknowledged by the homebuilders association, and he wished that the development community was willing to try the new code. He likened the update to TransPlan, saying the Eugene council had not received all it wanted in that plan but was willing to move forward and work with Springfield, Lane County, and Lane Transit District to make it work. He wished the two organizations would reconsider their appeals. Councilor Nathanson did not want to use the occasion to reopen discussion about what the council had just adopted, but she looked forward to seeing a lot of amendments as quickly as possible to fix errors and to improve the code. There were things in the code she was not happy with, like other councilors, and she believed changes would be needed to make the code work. She stated that she hoped the council did not find itself waiting until February or March 2002 to see the first amendments come to it. She hoped to see the first amendments right after the August recess. Councilor Rayor was disappointed by the lawsuits, recalling the comprehensive public process that had accompanied the Land Use Code Update. He thought the council had restrained itself from making changes at the end of the process that the development community would consider unilateral and outside the public process. He was looking forward to the City Attorney's opinion. Councilor Bettman suggested the council consider developing criteria for any amendments to the code it considered in the future. 6. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning the Public Purpose for Which Property Was Condemned under Ordinance 19660. City Manager Johnson reminded the council it had held a public hearing on the item. Mike Sullivan of the Planning and Development Department was present to answer questions. Responding to a question from Councilor Rayor regarding the correspondence received earlier that evening from the attorney representing Laurita Ruth, Mr. Klein said there were two possible significant dates: ten years from the date of the ordinance, and ten years from the date the City acquired the property. He said the research he had done indicated the significant date was ten years from the date of acquisition. He added he had not had the opportunity to investigate the citations quoted by the attorney representing Ms. Ruth. He noted that the attorney, Jon Junkin, was suggesting that the City could not change the public purpose; the ordinance presented to the council was based on a State statute specific to how the public purpose could be changed. Mr. Junkin did not address that statute in his letter. Mr. Klein said he was comfortable stating that the council had the authority to adopt the ordinance before it. He could not tell the council for sure today whether Mr. Junkin's letter would change his opinion about the significant date. He did not recommend the council delay its action pending further research. Councilor Rayor asked if the intended purpose for the property would still be a road. Mr. Klein said the primary purpose was for the road, but it was also intended for development and redevelopment consistent with the Urban Renewal Plan. The ordinance would confirm that the property was intended for use as the road, and would make it clear that a portion of the property not needed for the street could be used for redevelopment, such as a sale to AutoCraft. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 10 Regular Meeting