Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

to 500 feet for notification for Type 2 and 4 applications, adding that he was in favor of as much notification as possible and ensuring that the process was a transparent as possible. Ms. Hansen pointed out that notification requirements were not part of the suggested changes, adding that some of the emails she had received referred to increased notification for neighborhood developer meetings that would require the developer or applicant to send out public notice in advance of those meetings. The current requirement was notification within 300 feet for Type 2 and 4 applications, and within 500 feet for Type 3 applications. She would need to research the increased costs for increasing the notification distance to 500 feet for Type 2 and 4 applications. Responding to a question from Councilor Clark, Planning Director Lisa Gardner, clarified comments made by planning commissioners during the June 2 deliberations. It was the belief of the majority of the commissioners that proposed Amendment 5, Building Height Transitions within South University Neighborhood Association and Amendment 7, Required Parking for Multi-Family Developments in West University and South University Neighborhood Associations were not minor in nature. Because there were ongoing City processes with the Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) process to look at those issues, the commission felt they warranted a more comprehensive look. As part of their motion, the commission said it did not support adopting those amendments because they were not minor in nature, and were policy level decisions that should be made at the policy table. However, if the council chose to act, the commis- sion recommended that Amendment 5, Building Height Transitions, the amendment developed and supported by the neighbors, be adopted by the City Council. Responding to Councilor Taylor, Ms. Hansen affirmed the Planning Commission’s recommendation was that the City Council not adopt proposed Amendments 5 and 7, adding the ultimate decision was that of the council. Councilor Taylor stated the council should definitely adopt proposed Amendment 5. She asked if the height of the building as described in proposed Amendment 4, Building Height Measurements in Residential Zones, included the foundation or was measured above the foundation, and if language about comparable height could be added to the amendment. Ms. Hansen said the measurement started at the lowest grade level and comparable height was not part of the community suggestions. Their concern was that how building height was measured should be more transparent, and the Planning Commission agreed that was within the scope of the minor code amendments. Referring to proposed Amendment 9, Flag Lots Definition and Development Standards, Councilor Taylor thought a height requirement should be added, saying that building height should be compatible with the neighborhood. She asked what the time requirement for mail notification was. Reading from the ordinance, Ms. Hansen said the applicant had to mail notice of the meeting at least 14 days, but no more than 28, prior to the meeting. Before mailing the notice, the applicant was required to work with the neighborhood association to determine an acceptable date. Councilor Solomon thanked staff for including allowances for dogs in the proposed amendments. She reminded councilors that they had received an email from Norton Cabell, Chair of the HPB, regarding HPB’s concerns with several specific amendments. The board would be forwarding additional concerns to the council for consideration. Responding to a question from Councilor Solomon, Ms. Hansen said proposed Amendment 8, Stormwater Destination: Encourage On-site Infiltration as a Preferred Approach and Restrict Fill and Disturbance MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 4, 2008 Page 7 Work Session