Laserfiche WebLink
as it did not have the authorization to go beyond the scope of what the commission had provided <br />public notice on. The code section regarding slope was not included in the Fall 2002 Land Use <br />Code Amendments. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked if the setback restrictions on flag lots would apply to older dwellings. Ms. Bishow <br />responded that it would not be required for existing buildings. She felt that this would be <br />acceptable to the Lane County Homebuilders Association. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson commented that the council adds items to the workload of staff and the Planning <br />Commission occasionally, and noted that council had recently added telecommunications to the <br />list of items to be worked on. She felt that the importance of a single issue from the list could not <br />be accurately ascertained outside of the context of the entire list. She stressed that staff is <br />working hard. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked for reasons why staff would like to see the council proceed with all three <br />ordinances. Ms. Childs responded that it was hoped that this would allow three things to be <br />"crossed off of the list." She stressed the importance of putting in the proper amount of <br />groundwork into the two ordinances with which Mr. Kelly was concerned. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart commented that it was important for City Councilors to consider the workload placed <br />upon staff. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor felt that staff should bring an issue back to council if it becomes apparent that it can not <br />be completed in a timely fashion so that council has an opportunity to re-prioritize the workload. <br />She opined that land use ordinances should be brought before the Neighborhood Leadership <br />Council. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bishow explained that a flag lot is a lot that has <br />been legally divided according to the flag lot standards. These lots do not have the required <br />minimum street frontage as a standard lot and are typically to the rear of a lot with a driveway <br />from the street. <br />Ms. Taylor stated that she favored keeping the setbacks and height restrictions. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he would like all three ordinances to go before a public hearing. He <br />commented that staff has been reduced due to budgetary constraints and that he recognized that <br />this had impacted the ability of staff to complete all of the work before them. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs responded that, regarding the remand ordinances, staff had heard from the council that <br />staff should not begin any new issues until the remand was completed. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor pointed out that there was another track of development, that of the standard track, <br />which was clear and objective. He felt that it was clear and objective, as needed housing had no <br />site review, and that it was not arbitrary or capricious to limit them. He supported the ordinance <br />governing flag lots as it promotes infill within the City. He opined that lowering the setback for a <br />flag lot would allow a house to be placed with more consideration given to its ecological impact. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said, regarding prioritization of the work program, that he agreed that the list should be <br />considered in its entirety. He felt that this is exactly what had been done at the meeting in July. <br />He related that PDD Director Tom Coyle was present at that meeting and that the work program <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2002 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />