Laserfiche WebLink
phrase at the end of the first bulleted item: to reflect a height transition into the R-1 zoned <br />area. Ms. Bettman accepted both friendly amendments. <br /> <br />In response to questions from Mr. Clark, Ms. Harding said the amendment would expand the building height <br />trigger that was already in the code. She said MiCAP staff would need to rethink the code amendment that <br />was currently being proposed if the motion passed. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark reiterated his primary concern was to achieve certainty and clarity in the code amendment process <br />so that developers would understand the implications of purchasing a property zoned R-4. He did not want <br />each development proposal to be subjected to council intervention. He was in favor of a lower threshold for <br />parking requirements. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon preferred to let the ICS Task Team review the issues. She objected to adding items to the <br />th <br />MiCAP process at this point. She was concerned with changing the rules after the developer of the 19 and <br />Alder property had research the code and purchased property with a specific development in mind. She did <br />not want to frustrate developers who were necessary to helping the City achieve its goals. <br /> <br />th <br />City Attorney Glenn Klein clarified that any of the amendments being discussed would not affect the 19 <br />and Alder project as long as the developer submitted his building permit application before the amendments <br />were approved by the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling was not opposed to adding the items to the code amendment work plan and did not feel they <br />would affect the developer because it would take some time to complete the amendment process. <br /> <br />The vote on the motion to amend passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion to add a requirement <br />for the City Council to send a letter to the developer encouraging him to work with the <br />neighbors to make the project more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; to direct <br />staff to include the area south of the University from Alder Street to Agate Street as a test <br />case for the ICS process; to direct staff to have the ICS investigate and make high priority <br />alternative definitions of density, including people per acre instead of units per acre, and in- <br />vestigate enforcement mechanisms; to direct the staff to have the ICS investigate and make <br />a high priority alternative parking requirements, including consideration of people per acre <br />rather than merely number of units; and have staff bring back options for incentives for <br />making the project more sustainable and more compatible. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman indicated she was withdrawing her second unless the language related to incentives was <br />removed. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka agreed to remove that language from his motion. Ms. Bettman confirmed her second to the <br />motion without incentive language. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark expressed concern that there was not adequate time to fully discuss and understand the implica- <br />tions of some items in Mr. Zelenka’s motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon said the motion dealt with items that spoke to the larger issue of infill, which should be <br />discussed at a separate work session. She was loath to direct the ICS to make certain items priorities. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />