Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Torrey raised the topic of the time allotted to speakers during the public hearing on the tobacco-related <br />ordinances. He said that a tentative poll indicated the council was split on allotting three or two minutes to <br />speakers. He asked councilors to indicate their preference. By a vote of 5:3, with Mr. Pap6, Mr. Fart, and <br />Ms. Nathanson voting no, the council agreed to limit speakers at the September 11 public hearing to three <br />minutes. <br /> <br />2.Land Use Code Update <br /> <br />The council was joined by Planning Director Jan Childs, Land Use Code Update Project Manager Teresa <br />Bishow, and Emily Jerome of the City Attorney's Office. Ms. Bishow noted the council's decisions to this <br />point. She anticipated that the council's focus during the meeting would be completion of the traditional <br />neighborhood development theme and various related topics. Ms. Bishow referred the council to the meeting <br />packet, which included motions developed by staff in response to input from the council. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to direct the City Manager to change Street <br /> Connectivity Standards to allow flexible applications of street connectivity- with <br /> exemptions for environmental protection, neighborhood protection, and prevention of <br /> inappropriate volumes of traffic. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner observed that the exemptions seemed quite vague, citing specifically "neighborhood protection," <br />and asked staff about the consequences of the motion, and in particular if staff would have difficulty with <br />implementing the breadth of the exemptions for application. Ms. Childs responded that staff had provided <br />information related to the three topic areas and existing street connectivity requirements. She said that if the <br />council wanted to go beyond the existing exemptions and add the prevention of inappropriate volumes of <br />traffic, she recommended that it give staff direction to develop clear and objective standards. Mr. Meisner <br />said that he would oppose the motion as he thought the existing exemptions provided the protections Ms. <br />Taylor sought. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly was concerned by the breadth of the motion and confused as to its intent, given that the current <br />code already addressed them to some degree. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr thought more flexibility in street connectivity was needed but he did not think the motion was the <br />way to accomplish that. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor wanted to move the City away from a rigid interpretation of connectivity. She thought there were <br />places where street connectivity was not good for the neighborhood. She said that there were streets in her <br />neighborhood that had been closed by the City. Ms. Taylor said that if, for example, West Amazon Street <br />were to be opened, it would be detrimental to the neighborhood because of its environmental and traffic <br />volume impact. She was particularly concerned about street connectivity in established neighborhoods, rather <br />than in new developments. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked if it was the staff expectation that exemptions would be automatically granted. Ms. <br />Bishow said that the code needed to include clear standards not requiring discretion about when exemptions <br />were granted. Ms. Nathanson suggested that defining what would "ruin a neighborhood" would be difficult. <br />Ms. Bishow said that staff would need direction on what kind of clear standard would be the benchmark for <br />determining a broad concept of neighborhood protection. Ms. Nathanson pointed out to Ms. Taylor that new <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 6, 2000 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />