CC Minutes - 10/16/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pap8 indicated he would be interested in hearing the commission's reaction to the proposal. Ms. Bettman said another option was for the commission to act as a design review board and process alternative path requests. She believed that it was important for the City to try new techniques in the code update. Ms. Childs thought there would be some value to the approach suggested by Mr. Farmer because the adjustment review process was new to the code. She did not want to lose the element of Ms. Bettman's motion related to minor adjustments to clear and objective standards, noting that could be accomplished under a Type 1 procedure, a streamlining process that could offset to some degree the additional workload placed on the commission. Mr. Kelly clarified that the motion under consideration was specific to the council as the appeal body, and asked if Ms. Bettman was willing to make the commission the appeal body. Ms. Bettman indicated it was her intent that Type III appeals would go to the commission. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Farmer clarified that his recommendation was specific to major adjustments, and he believed it could be implemented under current Oregon law. City Attorney Emily Jerome provided background on the adjustments review process, emphasizing that a subjective process required a public hearing. That could occur upon appeal. The least intense way of providing an opportunity for public input was using the administrative procedure allowed by State law that allowed for a public hearing on written request. Mr. Kelly inquired as to whether Oregon law required an appeal to the council, or could the council establish a process wherein decisions were final at the local level. Ms. Jerome responded that she believed the City could employ what she characterized as an "end-all, be-all" approach as long as it provided an opportunity for a hearing before the commission. Appeals of the commission's decisions would go directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Mr. Farmer described a consent calendar approach to land use decisions used in another jurisdiction and suggested it could be adapted to local conditions. Responding to a question from Ms. Childs, Ms. Jerome said that she did not believe that a minor adjustment that was ten percent of the standard could be a Type I application. She reiterated that the level of subjectivity triggered the public involvement requirement. Ms. Childs said it did not appear the City could have a clear and objective process for varying its clear and objective standards. Ms. Jerome said that it would require some revisions to the code text to achieve such a process; for example, she pointed out that in many cases the reason for granting an adjustment was consistency with the purpose of the standard, which would not work. Mr. Rayor said he would have preferred that the motion be written in terms of the application types in the code. He questioned whether the City could establish an adjustment that was, for example, ten percent of a street frontage or ten percent of a tree preservation requirement. Mr. Rayor said it appeared that Type II applications such as that envisioned in the motion were already addressed by the code and included the right of appeal. He asked Ms. Bettman what value the motion added to the code. Ms. Bettman responded that she had problems with the adjustment review process because it was very discretionary and it would be implemented under the condition of a new code. She thought the motion gave the City an opportunity to do MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 6 Work Session