CC Minutes - 09/12/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly questioned the need for the initiation of the code amendments. He pointed out that the Planning Division's work program included the minor Land Use Code amendments, and he did not recall that the council had to initiate those amendments. For that reason, he questioned why the council needed to act in this case. Ms. Laurence said staff was requesting the council initiate the action to ensure the process began in an open public forum and the council was aware of what staff was attempting to accomplish. It was possible that questions and issues could arise that were not yet identified. Ms. Laurence recalled that some of the previous minor code amendments had represented "clean-up" actions as opposed to substantive changes. While staff had believed it had direction in the Downtown Plan to proceed with the amendments, it seemed that greater clarity would be given to the effort if the council took formal action. Mr. Kelly suggested that council action to initiate the amendments would be a political choice as opposed to a legal choice. He said given the lack oflegal direction, it seemed a political or management judgment. Ms. Muir suggested it was a process judgment. Staff believed the more formal action was required because the work plan item called for implementation of the Downtown Plan. Mr. Kelly said that given the staff response and Ms. Laurence's remarks about the need for greater clarity in regard to the process, he thought it important whatever amendments the council initiated be bound by council direction in some way. If the commission or public identified new issues during the public process, the commission could send the council a memorandum asking if it objected to adding the new issue to the process. Mr. Kelly believed it was "way overstating" to say that there was consensus among the Planning Commis- sioners about any changes, as the minutes provided to the council indicated there was consensus to discuss the identified areas of concern but no consensus about the ultimate solutions. With regard to the role of the ERAC, Mr. Kelly agreed that ERAC was a stakeholder but was not representative of all stakeholders. Ms. Taylor wondered why the item was initially put on the Consent Calendar when it deserved further discussion. Ms. Laurence said it was an implementation item in the Downtown Plan and a logical extension of the work program. Ms. Taylor hoped anything controversial or that represented a substantial change would be discussed by the council in a work session rather than placed on the Consent Calendar. She hoped the council discussed each item identified by the commission separately. Ms. Solomon found the staff presentation useful and informative. She expressed appreciation for the questions being asked by the commission, and wanted to give the commission and staff free rein to do the needed work. She thought a great deal of effort was involved, but that the issues identified were a key to the future of downtown. Mr. Pape concurred with Ms. Solomon about the value of the presentation. He said the council should consider how it could make the code work better and help realize its vision for downtown. He reiterated a previous suggestion that the City consider angled parking in its downtown to accommodate more automo- biles. Mr. Pape favored looking at not only downtown, but at the courthouse area as well. Ms. Bettman thought it a stretch to say the four issues before the council implemented the Downtown Plan, which was conceptual in many ways. She pointed out that none of the initiatives implemented the trolley system, which was also included in the Downtown Plan. She suggested that a couple of the issues were counter-productive to the realization of the plan. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 12, 2005 Page 6