Laserfiche WebLink
The proposed development shall have minimal off-site impacts, including <br /> such impacts as traffic, noise, stormwater runoff, and environmental quality; <br /> and 2) The proposed development shall be reasonably compatible and <br /> harmonimous with adjacent and nearby land uses." The motion passed <br /> unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> place the following issues on a list of potential future work program items: <br /> a) direct the Planning Commission to investigate design review and an <br /> alternative path review process as a future work program item. Direct the <br /> Planning Commission to recommend a range of options for an alternative <br /> path and additional design review; and b) evaluate alternative ways to notify <br /> and involve neighborhood groups of pending land use applications prior to <br /> the formal submission of the application. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted that the concept in part b of the motion came from an e-mail message from Jon <br />Belcher of the Planning Commission, and was modeled on a program in Albany that was <br />designed to involve neighborhood groups in development proposals with the goal of increased <br />cooperation and reduced adversarial situations. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br />Efficiency of Review--Policy Motions <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend Section 9.8215(4) to add consistency with the policies of Section <br /> 9.9900 Adopted Plan Policies in the approval criteria for "major" partitions. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the item was similar to the first element in the consent motion, calling for <br />consistency with adopted plan policies in major partitions. He added that the term "major <br />partitions" was not in the draft code, but the concept was included. The motion would direct staff <br />to continue to do work it was doing now. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson acknowledged the motion would require staff to do what it was it currently doing, <br />but given the code included new, more clear standards, the motion seemed to be adding to what <br />the council was trying to achieve. Where the council could find efficiencies, such as clear <br />standards, it should take that approach, as opposed to relying on more labor-intensive staff <br />processes. She was satisfied with the Planning Commission's recommendation in this area. If <br />the code contained clear standards, the motion was not needed. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor clarified that the motion addressed subdivisions with partitions in areas covered by <br />refinement plans. He said that it seemed like even a partition below the threshold should be <br />covered by the applicable refinement plan. However, Mr. Rayor acknowledged that there could <br />be one single nonconforming lot, calling into question for him the appropriate threshold. <br /> <br />Mr. Jacobson reported that the City received two or three applications annually for major <br />partitions, usually for sites in industrially and commercially zoned areas. It did not generally <br />"pencil out" to create a street for three or less lots on residentially zoned land. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Pap~ voting no. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />