CC Minutes - 01/14/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

wanted comment from other groups' expertise on the topic, such as the American Institute of Architects, and would arrange for that to occur. Ms. Briner said that the recommendation would have an impact on the budget for the update, as it resulted in a six-month extension of the process. She referred the council to a process schedule, distributed prior to the meeting. Ms. Briner said that information sessions would occur as planned. Mr. Meisner expressed support for Mr. Torrey's recommendation and stressed that it not exclude other groups from providing a review of the update as well. He hoped the City would encourage such reviews by providing staff assistance to those groups similar to that provided to the four groups identified by Mr. Torrey. Mr. Meisner also hoped staff could focus the groups' input by asking focused questions. For example, were the proposals in the Land Use Code Update consistent with the policies in the Growth Management Study and the TransPlan update? Ms. Briner said that Teresa Bishow of Planning and Development Department anticipated that comment, and had proposed such a list; staff would incorporate Mr. Meisner's suggestions. Mr. Meisner acknowledged the commission's concern about postponing adoption of the update but said he was not adverse to accelerating adoption of some elements of the update as appropriate. He suggested that staff could ask the review groups if there were elements that should be adopted earlier. Ms. Taylor indicated her concurrence with Mr. Meisner's remarks. She asked why Mr. Torrey was proposing review by both the Homebuilders Association and Chamber of Commerce as she believed the two groups would have the same views. Mr. Torrey said that the two groups had differing constituencies; the chamber represented a wide variety of businesses, particularly small businesses. Ms. Taylor said that both groups were pro-growth. Mr. Torrey agreed, but believed that there was a division of interests represented by the two groups. He believed that those interests would be balanced by the views of the other groups reviewing the update. Ms. Nathanson said that there were some elements of the update she would like to implement while Eugene was still experiencing growth. She anticipated more activity during the upcoming summer than Eugene experienced a decade past. Ms. Nathanson asked when the Permit and Information Center experienced the highest level of activity, and could the adoption process be scheduled to ensure that the update's impact were felt. Ms. Briner said that Eugene no longer experienced the same type of construction cycle it had in the past; construction occurred all year- round. She said that accelerating adoption of elements of the update would have both a financial impact in terms of staffing and would require the time of both staff and the appointed and elected officials. Ms. Swanson Gribskov supported Mr. Torrey's recommendation. She believed it represented an attempt to balance viewpoints. She cautioned the council against establishing a cumbersome, complicated process in an attempt to be inclusive. She shared Mr. Torrey's hopes the four groups could be a conduit for other input. Ms. Swanson Gribskov acknowledged the potential of additional costs from early adoption and suggested that the City Manager return to the council with an estimate of additional cost ramifications during the upcoming budget process. She said that the commission might want to consider the opportunity of conducting a pilot project through the conditional use permit process while the update process continued. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 1998 Page 3 11:30 a.m.