CC MInutes - 10/22/01 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Referring to Item B, Councilor Meisner expressed a desire to allow a public hearing. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly regarding whether the full application was presented before the public hearing, City Manager Jim Johnson said that usually, an application was presented to the Planning Division, in full, prior to the public hearing. Councilor Kelly raised concern that if the council set a date for the public hearing that evening, the applicant would present new information at the public hearing. He expressed his preference to see all of the information before the meeting. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly regarding whether the council had legal grounds to deny a public hearing for the time being, City Attorney Jerry Lidz cited ORS 271.100, which stated that the city governing body may deny the petition after notice to the petitioners of such proposed action, but if there appeared to be no reason why the petition should not be allowed, the governing body shall fix a time for a formal hearing. He noted that staff had presented the council with reasons for denying a hearing. He cautioned that this was only one statute among a set of statutes, and said that a more detailed response could be given at a later time. Councilor Taylor said that a hearing was premature and she was against setting a date for a hearing at that time. Councilor Bettman urged support of the staff recommendation to deny the hearing at that time. She stressed that the application was not complete and raised concern that there was nothing for staff to provide a recommendation on and nothing for the public to provide testimony on. She suggested setting a date for a public hearing after the completed application was submitted to staff. Councilor Rayor noted that the alley in question was very busy and said he was inclined to allow a public hearing to learn where the displaced traffic, bicycles, and pedestrians would be channeled when the alley was closed. In response to a question from Councilor Pap~ regarding the reason that particular alley vacation needed a development plan, City Manager Johnson noted that a public hearing was always called for and said that it was at the public hearing where the applicant tried to explain compliance with State law. He indicated that staff was having difficulty in seeing how the petition complies with State law. City Manager Johnson noted that PeaceHealth was planning to do a development plan and opined that the impacts on pedestrians and bicycles could be described at that time. Councilor Kelly commented that a master plan took months or years. He said he did not expect to see a fully fleshed out master plan before the hearing but expressed a desire to have a public hearing after the submittal of an application with more information. Councilor Meisner raised concern over denying a public hearing based on a presumption of the merits of the application by staff. He stressed that a public hearing did not guarantee approval or denial of the application request for a vacation. He expressed his preference to have a hearing and make a decision at that time. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2001 Page 2 Regular Meeting