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

Home Browse Search

Regarding Mr. Kloos' submittal, Mr. Klein said he had not read Mr. Kloos' letter yet and he recommended the council give him an opportunity to read it before it took final action. As a general proposition, he added, Mr. Kloos' statements regarding the statutes were correct. He did not know, however, that the statutes applied to what the council was being asked to do. The council was only changing the effective date of the ordinance, not the substantiative provisions of the ordinance itself. Councilor Rayor determined from Mr. Klein that the Land Use Code Update had been appealed to Land Use Board of Appeals, even though it was not in effect. Under State statute, the appeal must be filed within 21 days of the date the council adopted the code. Councilor Pap8 asked if the council could reverse what it did between code adoption and a final decision on Ballot Measure 7. Mr. Klein said the council could make changes to the code, but people would have made applications based on the new code prior to the court decision on Ballot Measure 7. Under that scenario, if someone built an apartment building that contained fewer units under the new code than would have been allowed by the former code, the council's action would be too late for that individual to construct what he or she initially wanted. Mr. Klein said they would have been damaged and the City would have to pay compensation. He said that there were ways to provide more flexibility in the code and reduce the City's liability if Ballot Measure 7 takes effect. Councilor Pap8 asked about the position taken by 1,000 Friends of Oregon that the City could not grant case-by-case waivers. Mr. Klein said that the organization had not reached the point of identifying its specific arguments. The organization had appealed all ordinances that included a blanket waiver provision for Measure 7. He clarified he was discussing something different; most land use codes already have provisions related to variances. For example, the Land Use Code Update had an adjustment provision. He was talking about "tweaks" to those provisions that might give the City more flexibility than it did now. Mr. Klein had heard nothing from the 1,000 Friends of Oregon that indicated it would oppose such a provision as a violation of State law. Councilor Bettman noted the length of the adoption process. She said that there was a significant amount of testimony incorporated into the code from many different individuals and organizations, and she wanted to adopt the code as soon as possible. Her constituents informed her that developers were making applications for projects that would have a negative impact on their neighborhoods before the code could take effect. She had not heard anything to convince her the council should not move forward. Councilor Taylor asked about Mr. Matthews' concern about the South Hills Study. Ms. Bishow responded that the applicable plan policies were included at the end of the land use ordinance. She wanted to look into Mr. Matthews' testimony further. She anticipated that there could be other omissions or oversights, and hoped staff would have the funding to address needed changes to the code. Councilor Kelly was also interested in moving ahead with the code on a date certain to give the development community and staff more certainty about when the code took effect. He expressed the wish that the representative of the homebuilders had the courtesy to provide his remarks to the City Attorney in advance of offering his testimony, as had Al Johnson, attorney for the Chamber of Commerce. He was willing, however, to defer to the City Attorney's interest in further review of the issues involved, given that the council was scheduled to act on May 29 and could adopt the August 1 effective date at that time. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 9 Regular Meeting