Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend the code to ensure that consistency with refinement plan policies that <br /> are "clear and objective" in nature be required for approvals that follow the <br /> "needed housing" path. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly explained that he believed some of the refinement plan policies were clear and <br />objective, and he trusted to staff's discretion to make that determination, and identify which <br />policies were needed for the needed housing path. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor determined from Ms. Childs that the needed housing path was applicable to all <br />residential zones. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Rayor voting no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend the applicability sections of various land use applications, such as <br /> site review, to require any grading, fill, or building permits to be based on an <br /> approved land use application. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that there had been confusion in the past over what activities could occur on a <br />property with site review overlay before a site plan was submitted. He said that the text in the <br />motion was suggested by staff to clarify that if a property was subject to site review, all planning <br />must be up-front. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow recommended further council discussion of the policy issues involved. The Planning <br />Commission had recommended a trigger for when certain land use applications would be <br />required. For instance, with regard to site review, the commission recommended allowing an <br />existing building with a site review overlay to expand to up to 20 percent of its square footage <br />before the site review process was triggered. She said that Mr. Kelly's motion would maintain the <br />current practice that required an approved site review plan prior to issuance of a building permit. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that it was not his intent to preclude the 20 percent expansion provision <br />recommended by the commission. Rather, he had been attempting to clarify that new <br />development of vacant sites included activities such as grading and fill, not just construction. He <br />invited alternative text from staff. Ms. Childs suggested that if the council agreed that the motion <br />only applied to new development of vacant sites, staff could develop the appropriate text. Mr. <br />Kelly agreed, and amended his motion to indicate that it would only apply to new development <br />sites. Mr. Meisner accepted the amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked what would happen in the case of redevelopment sites. Ms. Bishow responded <br />that site review would be triggered in all cases if a building was completely demolished. <br />Remodeling inside the building or expansion up to 20 percent of the existing square footage <br />would not trigger site review. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor determined from Ms. Bishow that the motion could preclude site grading, fill, or <br />expansion of 20 percent or more prior to approval of the site review plan. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />