Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend Section 9.9900s, Adjustment Review Type, to clarify that "minor <br /> adjustments" to clear and objective standards could be reviewed by the <br /> Planning Director. In cases where there were "significant adjustments" being <br /> requested, the Planning Commission would make a decision following a <br /> public hearing. Amend the code also to include new draft criteria for the <br /> Planning Commission to consider while reviewing plans for compliance with <br /> key design elements. <br /> <br />Speaking to the motion, Ms. Bettman said that the adjustments review process came up late in <br />the update process and had not received much public scrutiny. It essentially was an alternative <br />path. Ms. Bettman said that the "Gang of Four" (Chamber of Commerce, Friends of Eugene, <br />Lane County Homebuilders Association, and the Neighborhood Leaders Council) had generally <br />agreed that the alternative path was a good idea but it should be postponed to give people time <br />to provide input, and the issues worked through after the code was completed. She believed the <br />community would need a process with public input to address unexpected problems that arose <br />during the implementation of the new code, and for that reason requested that staff develop the <br />text in the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman noted that there were already criteria in the adjustment review process that could <br />be consolidated into one list for use by the commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that he supported the motion because involving the commission in such decisions <br />would be an educational experience and good practice for the future as he believed the <br />commission would be the initial public input focus for any changes to the code. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked staff to estimate how much added work the motion would create for the <br />commission. Ms. Childs anticipated a significant number of additional commission meetings <br />would be required. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs pointed out that the council would have to serve as the appeal body if the commission <br />was the first point of review. If the original decision originated with the Planning Director, the <br />commission could serve as the appeal body. She said that approving the motion would increase <br />the work load of both the commission and council. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor agreed with the underlying principle in the motion. He suggested a minor adjustment <br />would be a Type II application and the major adjustment would be a Type III application, which <br />required a quasi-judicial proceeding. He did not think that increasing the commission's work load <br />for the sake of education was a good practice. <br />Mr. Farmer believed that having the commission play a role in such proceedings could be <br />valuable because the commission could apply a broader set of planning principles to actual <br />development proposals. In his previous experience, the decision of a planning commission was <br />final, and any further appeals had to be heard by the courts. There had never been any court <br />appeals during that time because issues were worked out at the planning commission in a public <br />forum. The administrative process could have broad public notice. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor liked the approach suggested by Mr. Farmer as it generally followed the Type II permit <br />application process. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />