Laserfiche WebLink
theme listed in the meeting packet and the key applicable code sections. The packet also <br />contained questions previously asked by the elected officials and testimony relevant to the <br />themes. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow referred the council to the first two of five policy issues listed in the packet: <br /> <br /> 1. Should the council direct that issues which cannot be resolved within the Land Use <br /> Code Update time schedule be placed as priority items on the Planning Commission <br /> work program? <br /> <br /> 2. Should the City examine updating the zoning map after adoption of the Land Use <br /> Code? <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson believed it was essential to examine the zoning map because the City's current <br />zoning patterns did not realize the City's planning goals and often resulted in undesirable <br />development, but she acknowledged the difficulty of doing so from a practical point of view, <br />pointing to the City's experience with the Whiteaker refinement plan, which was a massive <br />undertaking for both staff and the citizens. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Nathanson. He said that the council must deal with the issue, and he <br />considered it a work program item for the commission. He suggested that the council could work <br />on the some of the issues involved by appropriately applying some of the new overlay zones, <br />such as the nodal development overlay zone. Mr. Kelly also believed that the City needed to <br />both update and create new refinement plans for neighborhoods to address some of the issues <br />involved. However, he acknowledged the need for examination of some issues at a citywide <br />level, such as the location and distribution of general commercial land throughout the community. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly indicated he was not interested in addressing the specific zoning situations mentioned <br />in testimony outside a more thorough examination of the zoning map. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Childs clarified that the list of themes and topics <br />listed in the packet were staff's attempt to identify some of the "big picture" issues mentioned in <br />public testimony. She acknowledged that it was possible not all topics of interest to councilors <br />were listed, and solicited additional suggestions from the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner advocated for a review of the code that allowed the council to see the "big picture" <br />and gave it an opportunity to discuss the type of city it wanted to see, and to better understand <br />how the various elements of the code worked together. He was not persuaded that the review of <br />the zoning map was needed as part of the update process. He acknowledged the cost of that <br />review as a separate work plan item. Mr. Meisner said that the zoning map review should occur <br />immediately after the update. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor expressed skepticism about a separate review of the zoning map. Mr. Kelly pointed <br />out that the update redefined the zones, which argued for a separate, subsequent review. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding the timing of the review, Ms. Bishow said <br />that staff was seeking to complete the code review by the end of the year because of the <br />project's impact on development, to avoid the need for further funding, and to bring the code into <br />compliance with changes in State law. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2000 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />