Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to table the motion and have <br /> staff bring it back before the council at the earliest opportunity. The motion <br /> passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner ascertained that the moratorium on requests would remain pending further council <br />discussion. <br /> <br /> IV. WORK SESSION: POTENTIAL CITY-INITIATION OF WHITEAKER PLAN <br /> AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner recalled that the Whiteaker Plan had been reaffirmed by the council one year ago, <br />and the process of plan adoption included clear mailed notice to all property owners, including <br />the one who had raised the issue under consideration. He said the property in question was <br />rezoned after multiple notices to the owner without any response, acknowledging that staff erred. <br />Since then, Mr. Meisner continued, the owner has removed the house in front without a permit <br />and has not, during other processes, sought rezoning. <br /> <br />Teresa Bishow, Planning and Development Department, said the council needed to decide <br />whether the City should initiate an amendment to the Whiteaker Plan. She said the council's <br />October 26 packet for the public hearing would provide a greater overview of the issue and a <br />decision was scheduled for November 9. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar said the question would set a precedent and the council should not underestimate <br />the significance. <br /> <br />Addressing a question from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Bishow said that the code does not require the <br />council to hold a public hearing before deciding whether to City-initiate a plan amendment. <br />However, staff anticipated that the owner would come back again and again if not afforded an <br />opportunity to address the council and so a public hearing was scheduled out of courtesy to the <br />property owner and the neighborhood group. Ms. Bishow reviewed the policy question: When <br />there is an error made by City staff during preparation of a plan, how does the council stand on <br />whether to City-initiate a plan amendment to reconsider the matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, that the City not initiate a <br /> request for a refinement plan amendment and zone change. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar said the Whiteaker Plan was an extremely complicated process and given <br />adequate notice, the City should not assume the responsibility for initiating an amendment <br />despite the staff error made in a land use survey. <br /> <br />Ms. Swanson Gribskov said she was confused and needed to understand the issue to vote or <br />she would have to support a public hearing. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that with the motion the council is calling off the public <br />hearing. If the motion fails, the scheduled public hearing will go forward and public testimony will <br />be made on whether the City should be the one to start this planning process or whether it <br />should be the property owner that should initiate the process. Given that, Ms. Swanson Gribskov <br />said, then she needed to understand the nature of the staff error. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 21, 1998 Page 7 <br /> 11:30 a.m. <br /> <br /> <br />