CC Minutes - 11/20/06 Meeting
City of Eugene
CC Minutes - 11/20/06 Meeting
6/9/2010 10:32:39 AM
1/11/2007 11:35:02 AM
City Council Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
Ron Blacquiere <br />, 1858 Lawrence Street, thanked Mr. Conte and the neighborhood association for their work <br />and hoped for the council’s endorsement of the recommendation. He was excited by the process and hoped <br />it happened elsewhere in Eugene. <br /> <br />th <br />Jon Belcher <br />, 1240 West 15 Avenue, #4, said the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors Web site called the <br />recommendation a win for the neighborhood, owner, and City, but he questioned how it was a win for the <br />City given the fact the recommendation overturned the City land use code. He questioned why a Ballot <br />Measure 37 claim was required if both the proposed house as well as the infill standards were great. He <br />suggested that something must be broken, and he believed it was the density standards approved for the <br />neighborhood in question. He said that the standards would preclude the building that existed on the lot <br />now, much less another structure. He said the standards also precluded such desirable things as owner- <br />occupied row houses. <br /> <br />While for the most part he found the standards related to scale and size acceptable, Mr. Belcher maintained <br />that the code represented a de facto downzoning of the neighborhood from R-2 to R-1 and the claim before <br />the council showed that did not work. He said if the goal was to reduce the underlying zoning, the City <br />should be honest and just do that rather than set limits on the number of dwelling units by lot size <br />essentially rendering the area R-1 and additionally precluding infill that meets the size and mass standards. <br />Mr. Belcher said that the community should be built to the standards in the Land Use Code, not through <br />agreements between property owners and neighborhood groups for Ballot Measure 37 claims they liked. <br /> <br />Susannah Meininger <br />, 1418 Lawrence, #A, asked if the record could remain open for additional testimony. <br />City Manager Taylor indicated the council could hold the record open if it wished. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to keep the record open for written testimony <br />until November 27, 2006, at 5 p.m. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions or comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thanked those who testified. He referred to page 23 of the Agenda Item Summary, which <br />described what was waived, including the applicable multi-family standards. He assumed that was because <br />a single-family dwelling was proposed. Ms. Thomas indicated that adding a single dwelling would trigger <br />the multi-family standards, and it was unclear without more exhaustive study and design that the standards <br />could be met and the building actually constructed. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly referred to the first page of the resolution, Recital C, which referred to the written agreement <br />between the neighbors, Ms. Bush, and the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors, and asked for confirmation that <br />although the written agreement was attached to the resolution, it had no legal bearing in the City’s action <br />because it was a private agreement. City Attorney Glenn Klein concurred, noting it was attached because it <br />explained in more detail the origin of the detail and because part of the agreement was the waiver of any <br />other Ballot Measure 37 rights by the property owner. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thanked the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors leadership and the neighbors for working together to <br />reach a good conclusion. He said that Ballot Measure 37 was not good law but those involved rose to the <br />occasion. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 20, 2006 Page 3 <br /> Public Hearing <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.