CC Minutes - 10/10/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Clark thanked staff for the thorough work. He noted that suggested amendments 204, 206 and 209 all related to stormwater issues and asked why only 206 and 209 were selected for white paper development while 204 remained a low priority. Mr. Nystrom said that 204 represented a much more complex issue that would far exceed the limited scope of the minor amendment process. He said 204 would remain on the full list of amendments for future consideration. 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 finally, 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 had 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 10, 2007 Page 2 Work Session