CC Minutes - 10/14/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

extensions to date have put this update almost four years beyond the original deadline. He does not want to see another extension request, and wanted the fast track option to remain open. Mr. Lee stated this was a reasonable request for a time consuming project. In response to Mr. Lee's question on fast track, Mr. Conrad said that would be discussed separately. In response to Mr. Tollenaar's question, Ms. Bishow explained the State program that provided technical code assistance to jurisdictions that are interested in updating their codes. The City's GMS principles were in line with State principles and by extending the time line the City could receive professional technical code assistance. Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to approve the changes to the project schedule as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was adopted unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to amend Objective 11 by substituting the following language: in light of public benefits to be achieved consider costs, both public and private, and both short-term and consequential in proposed changes to the Land Use Code. Ms. Taylor voiced her objection to using the word "consequential." Mr. Tollenaar said the intent was to consider costs, yet not limit that consideration to the immediate impacts, but look beyond to impacts in the community. After discussion by the members, Mr. Farr recommended the members move on to the next item, and that unless there was an objection, the amendment and the motion were withdrawn. Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission to continue review of the draft code as a whole and not put any Land Use Code amendments on a "fast track." For the record, Ms. Bishow distributed an e-mail from Barry Davis supporting fast tracking of the 19-Lot Rule. Mr. Conrad noted that the commission had made prior decisions not to fast track but because of repeated requests had tried to come up with a frame work to evaluate fast tracking. He said that Mr. Van Landingham mentioned that four of the proposed code amendments were fast tracked before and the results were not effective and had extended the process. Mr. Klein stated that adopting the motion would not preclude the council putting something on a fast track at a future date. Mr. Meisner said his goal for the council was to be able to preserve the option of fast tracking. The council does want the commission to look at maximum lot size, not as a mandate, but to maintain the fast track option. Mr. Conrad said the commission recognized the concerns of the council. The code was so interrelated that the commission had been concerned about taking one section out for consideration and having the whole code unravel. Mr. Farr said he shared the concerns of both, but based on the City Attorney's position the council retained the right to request fast track for an item. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 1998 Page 5 11:30 a.m.