Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Farmer emphasized the need for local zoning to balance interests regarding private property <br />owner, rights and responsibilities. He said the ordinances before the council attempted to reflect <br />that balance. Mr. Farmer said that the community needed to determine what its values were, <br />make it easier for people to do what the community wants, and make it harder for people to do <br />what the community did not want. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer distributed a list of working themes developed by staff with related issues identified <br />under each theme title. He recommended that the council work through issues related to the <br />update using the themes as a template for discussion. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer noted that the code, as recommended by the commission to the council, would <br />require an additional seven full-time employees. Staff would continue to tally the staff resources <br />required by any additions suggested by the council during its upcoming deliberations. Staff would <br />also identify some things not in the code because of a Planning Commission recommendation, <br />and things not in the code because they represented relatively new ideas and required further <br />work. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer believed that the updated code represented an improvement over the current code. <br />He recognized the contributions of the citizen volunteers, the Planning Commission, staff, Project <br />Manager Teresa Bishow, and Planning Director Jan Childs in developing the update. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow encouraged the council to use the update to make a difference in Eugene. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow reviewed key recommendations of the Planning Commission about which the council <br />was likely to hear testimony. She said that there would be people expressing frustration about <br />the commission's recommendations to the council because their vision was not included or they <br />were concerned about a specific piece of property. She encouraged the council to consider that <br />testimony, and said that staff was committed to helping the council shift that frustration into <br />community transformation. She said that staff continued to meet with residents, property owners, <br />and groups who had questions about the update. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer said that the department would put an advertisement in the paper to let people know <br />staff would be available to the public at a public information session to be held before the public <br />hearing. Planning and Development Department staff would also be present during the hearing. <br /> <br />Councilors asked a series of questions and made several comments, which staff recorded for <br />future response. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed that it was important to look at the costs of code administration but suggested it <br />was also important to consider the costs to the community of not implementing the code. He <br />assumed that the costs of more employees would be underwritten by fees. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he would like a formal mechanism developed for the council's work sessions that <br />allowed the council to put issues that could not be resolved through the update on a first priority <br />work plan list and a second priority list for those items requiring considerable more work. He <br />then wanted to adopt the two priority lists by council motion or resolution to signal that those <br />were now staff work plan items. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly liked the list of constructing work sessions around working themes. Regarding the list <br />of the commission's working themes, he said that the themes were interesting reading but the <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2000 Page 12 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />