CC Minutes - 11/09/98 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bishow explained options related to preparation of the application and waiver of fees which would need to be considered if a motion to initiate the changes was approved. She stated that staff recommended adoption of Option 2, in which applications for the changes would be prepared by the property owner and application fees would be waived. She said advantages of Option 2 included that staff would retain the responsibility of evaluating the applications without having also prepared them. Mr. Farr asked how much time and expense would be involved in the preparation of plan amendment and zone change applications by an untrained person. Ms. Bishow replied that an untrained person would likely need to hire planning consultants to assist in the process. A planning consultant would require approximately one month to prepare the applications and there would be some expense involved in the preparation, although City staff would provide limited consultation services. In response to another question from Mr. Farr, Ms. Bishow stated that although the property owner had initially expressed interest in preparing the applications, a recent telephone call had indicated that staff preparation of the applications would be preferred. She said that the advantage to the applicant in self-preparation would be that control would be maintained over arguments for the changes. Mr. Farr said that since the need for the plan and zone changes were created by an error of the City, he believed that the property owner should incur no expense in rectifying the error. Mr. Tollenaar asked if an error had actually been made in identifying the property as being developed with two dwellings, instead of a mix of uses. Ms. Bishow replied that the building in question had been inspected when the owner had contacted staff regarding the zoning of the property and that it was obvious that the building, at that time, and for some time previously, was filled with business-related equipment and supplies. Mr. Tollenaar asked if there were other similar situations in the area covered by the Whiteaker Plan. Ms. Bishow replied that it was unknown if other such situations existed because the situation under consideration was the first reported since adoption of the Whiteaker Plan in 1994. Mr. Tollenaar asked if lack of response by the property owner to notifications of pending zone changes at the time of the adoption of the Whiteaker Plan relieved the City of its responsibility to address the error in the land use survey. Ms. Bishow replied that she did not believe it did, but that rather it illustrated the difficulty of engaging property owners in land use issues. She said that Planning staff was aware that some property owners found zone change notices difficult to understand and that their full impact on future development potential was not always understood. She also said that the policy of having made the zone changes brought by adoption of the Whiteaker Plan was not in question, but that some staff believed the City and property owner should jointly bear responsibility for correcting the error currently being considered. Mr. Tollenaar asked if any conflict of interest would be created by having the City prepare applications for a plan and zone change. City Attorney Glenn Klein replied that although staff would prepare and evaluate the applications, it was not a legal conflict because decisions about granting the applications would be made by a Hearings Official, not staff. He pointed out that similar issues were considered on two previous occasions and that no conflict of interest had been determined. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 9, 1998 Page 4 7:30 p.m.