CCAgenda-4/12/04Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

working without a priority list and was "all over the list," trying to accomplish many things. Mr. Meisner questioned whether those items should be listed as be ongoing. He was unsure what "other" meant if the council could not prioritize the list at all. Ms. Muir said that many of the items on the list would be "back- burnered" while staff focused on the priority list. For example, staff would continue to attend Region 2050 meetings but did not have a large role in those meetings. Mr. Meisner asked if staff was saying that "other" items would not be done without "independent time or resources." Ms. Muir was hesitant to say yes, because if a Region 2050 meeting arose with an agenda item important to the City, staff might attend that meeting. Mr. Meisner believed that applied to everything on the list. Ms. Bettman did not understand how issues with dedicated funding could bump other items when the dedicated funding was provided in addition to the General Funds provided to the department. She wanted a list without any items with dedicated funding. Mr. Kelly agreed that the work involved on the cell tower ordinance could be minor and said he would support the amendment. Speaking to the process, Mr. Kelly said he would move to remove items from the top priority list to maintain balance. He said he had looked forward to the meeting because he wanted to help the division set its priorities, but shared the frustration expressed by Mr. Meisner and Ms. Bettman about the lack of information. Speaking to the concerns expressed by Ms. Solomon and Ms. Nathanson, he pointed out the work session was an opportunity for the council to set direction for the division's activities. Mr. Meisner clarified that Mr. Kelly's friendly amendment related to funding was "for a funding request if required for the development of the work program item." The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Pap~, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Solomon voting no. Ms. Bettman advocated for additional funding for site-specific planning for nodal development. She recalled the Budget Committee's 2003 discussion about the 29th Avenue and Willamette Street node, and the general agreement that the area had characteristics of a node and needed some site-specific planning to realize nodal development goals. She believed the division had the resources to work on site-specific planning. She said the council already knew there were problems with the overlay zone and had directed staff to rework it prior to allocating the funding for site-specific planning, so that was not relevant to the issue. Staff was now suggesting that the council begin at "square one" and redefine site-specific planning. That was not what the funding was allocated for. She said staff should be looking at nodes to find which to apply its expertise. Ms. Bettman maintained that there were willing businesses and property owners in the vicinity of 29th and Willamette who were ready to work on a site-specific plan. She was pleased with the priority assigned the item, but believed staff interpretation of the council and committee's direction was incorrect. Mr. Coyle said that over the past year, the definition of "site-specific planning" had evolved from what he considered a term of art to an exact science. He was hearing people saying they wanted to do site plans for each node. Mr. Coyle said the problems staff encountered with zoning would be magnified by that approach. He had interpreted site-specific planning as issues resolution as it related to ten or twelve different nodes. The City could engage developers and residents in a high-level discussion, but staff would not be "taking pen to paper" absent a developer. If the council wished staff to do predevelopment MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 6 Work Session