Laserfiche WebLink
something different on a trial basis, as the adjustment review process would only be in place until <br />the City created a new alternative path, or design review process. Ms. Bettman also thought the <br />adjustment review process would be improved by the motion because the criteria were so <br />discretionary. In addition, the commission would have the benefit of new consolidated criteria, as <br />well as benefitting from the experience that the process gave it when considering changes <br />needed to the update. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 said he did not object to trying something new, but he wanted to ensure that appeals <br />were not initially directed to the LUBA, and that the council did not have to hear the initial appeal. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Ms. Childs interpreted the motion as calling for an <br />initial hearing by the Planning Commission with no opportunity for appeal at the local level. She <br />said it appeared there was some council support for processing significant adjustments as a <br />Type II application with appeal to the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner was not interested in a consent calendar approach, anticipating that there would be <br />few consent items that were not pulled for further discussion. He was concerned about adding to <br />the work load of the commission. He was willing to let the Planning Director to make the initial <br />decision about significant adjustments. He liked the concept of new draft criteria regardless of <br />who made the decision. Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Pap8 about the council as the appeal <br />body. He was not sure he supported the commission as the appeal body. Mr. Meisner could not <br />support the motion at this point as he supported only the concept of the criteria. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to amend the motion by deleting <br /> sentence 2 and replacing it with the following sentence: "In cases where <br /> there were significant adjustments requested, those would be handled as a <br /> Type II decision, except that the appeal body would be the Planning <br /> Commission." <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly explained he retained the first sentence in the original motion because he thought there <br />was no reason clear and objective minor adjustments could not be made by the Planning <br />Director. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor thought the amendment somewhat of an improvement. Responding to a question <br />from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Kelly acknowledged that the effect of the amendment would be a somewhat <br />streamlined process and might not result in as extensive a level of public input as Ms. Bettman <br />hoped for. <br />Mr. Rayor indicated he was unsure of his position on the motion and amendment, reiterating his <br />disappointment that staff had not crafted a motion that was more direct and which amended the <br />table in the code regarding to the decision paths for applications. He was leaning toward <br />opposition because the current text provided for notice and appeal no matter what type of <br />adjustment was involved. <br /> <br />Ms. Jerome suggested that if the council was directing staff to revisit the adjustment review <br />criteria and create some clear and objective criteria to adjust the clear and objective standards, it <br />should put the item on a future work program. She said that in this instance, staff was attempting <br />to give itself an opportunity to find out what kinds of issues arise that persuade decision makers <br />to grant adjustments in different cases. As those issues come up, they would be noted and <br />incorporated into the criteria. Ms. Jerome said as she understood the amended motion, minor <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />