Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Responding to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Laurence said the standards in the /TD overlay included: a maximum setback of 15 feet from the public right-of-way (R-O-W), no parking between the building and the street, and, if there was structured parking, it needed to be wrapped at least 50 percent with another use. The regulations were geared to making buildings pedestrian-friendly to encourage people to walk along them and use transit. Some of the regulations were in conflict with other areas of the code, such as density requirements being in conflict with setback requirements. Adding this discretion to existing code language would make it possible for people to move forward with downtown development that did not meet the exact regulations but met the intent and purpose of the code. In response to Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Hansen said the adjustment review was a Type II land use application process, approved by the Planning Director. There was a public notice requirement and an opportunity for appeal of the Planning Director’s decision. Ms. Jerome stated a decision that went to the City Council would not be a Type II application review process, in response to Councilor Taylor’s query, but it could be done. B. WORK SESSION: Minor Code Amendments City Manager Ruiz introduced the agenda item, noting the Minor Code Amendment project was the second phase of a two-phase project to address minor issues in the land use code. The first phase addressed gaffs, ambiguities and conflicts raised by staff. The second phase consisted of code changes suggested by the community to the City Council. He introduced Alissa Hansen of Planning and Development. Ms. Hansen said June 16, 2008, the City Council would hold a public hearing on an ordinance addressing potential minor land use code amendments to Eugene Code Chapter 9. The purpose of the work session was to provide the council with background prior to the public hearing. Following the conclusion of Phase I, the City Council directed staff to focus the next phase on amendments that were raised by community members. The amendments addressed 18 topics, and were the result of an extensive public outreach process over the past year consisting of numerous workshops, forums and other public meetings to solicit amendments, refine the list and define the code language. The majority of the proposed amendments were proposed by the community with the remaining proposals added by the council. The 20 potential amendments were brought to the City Council at a work session in October 2007, after which the project team created white papers which framed specific options for each code amendment and related considera- tions. Staff coordinated with community members and neighborhood representatives on more complex issues to craft or refine conceptual alternatives and code language for inclusion in the white papers. The Planning Commission evaluated the white papers, considered public testimony and public comments on the white papers, and ultimately determined the amendments to move forward to the City Council for the approval process. Following a well attended May 21, 2008, public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a majority of the amendments suggested by the community, some with minor revisions or clarifications at a June 2, 2008, work session. However, Minor Code Amendments 5 and 7 were found to have broader policy implications, and the Planning Commission voted 7:0 not to support them at this time. These included amendments related to building height transitions and parking require- ments in multi-family developments in the West and South University areas. A revised ordinance including the changes made by the Planning Commission as well as their deliberations would be provided to the council prior to the June 16 public hearing. Ms. Hansen reviewed the proposed amendments included in the AIS. Councilor Clark thanked staff for their work. He had received much input from constituents regarding notification requirements. He asked what the cost to the City would be to increase the level of notification MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 4, 2008 Page 6 Work Session