Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Clark asked if a thorough analysis of 206 and 209 could be made without considering 204. Mr. Nystrom said it was possible to consider those more limited amendments at this time and that information would contribute to a more extensive analysis of stormwater issues in the future. Ms. Taylor asked when the council would be involved in the process. Mr. Nystrom said he anticipated the council would be engaged in the process in late winter, depending on how long hearings were conducted by the Planning Commission; those hearings would not commence until early 2008. Ms. Taylor asked if the council would receive copies of the white papers as they were developed and whether action would occur on all amendments simultaneously. She asked how the public would be involved in reviewing and commenting on the white papers. Mr. Nystrom replied that the council could be provided with the white papers and any other information it wanted, either incrementally or when all were completed. He said the process could bundle smaller numbers of related amendments for council considera- tion. He said public involvement would include workshops, informal meetings with the Planning Commis- sion, and formal hearings. Ms. Taylor remarked that the NLC was composed of individuals and might not always reflect the interest of entire neighborhoods. She urged staff to include neighborhood associations in their outreach efforts. She questioned why the height of backyard houses, which was important to neighborhoods, was not on the list. Mr. Nystrom said there were a number of suggestions related to infill issues, including height restrictions. He said the review to determine what could be addressed in the limited scope of the minor amendments process concluded that those issues would be better addressed in the infill standards project. Ms. Bettman commended staff for the minor code amendments process and the public participation component. She noted that density, as it applied to zones other than residential, did not appear to be on the list of suggested amendments. She did not feel that residential zones should absorb all of the responsibility for density; commercial and industrial should have the same expectations. She asked how the list of recommendations from the council was developed. Mr. Nystrom said the recommendations came from council work sessions and comments and emails from councilors. Ms. Bettman stated that she had asked for growth management policies to be adopted as part of the Land Use Code, but that was not on the list. Mr. Nystrom explained that the Planning Commission identified that as a significant issue, but felt it was too complex for the minor amendments process; he expected that it would be included in the commission's upcoming work program. He noted that a majority of the amend- ments on the list came from the community. Mr. Zelenka praised the work of all those involved in the process to-date. He agreed with Ms. Taylor's suggestion to involve the neighborhoods directly. He hoped that amendments would be bundled and brought to the council over a period of time instead of all at once. He said the amendments that were important to him were 8, 101, 12, 109, 95, 151, 192, 193, 206, 209, 35, and 114. Regarding 95, he expressed concern about eliminating site reviews. He asked how the noise and smoking ordinance fit into the process. Mr. Nystrom said the smoking and noise ordinance would amend Chapter 6, not the Land Use Code in Chapter 9. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Nystrom said the downtown code amendments were in Chapter 9. He said the minor amendments process also received many comments regarding downtown and those were referred to the concurrent downtown code amendments process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 10, 2007 Page 2 Work Session