Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

of Drainage Ways came from community members living in the River Road/Santa Clara (RR/SC) area. There were two components, the first being indication of a preference for on-site filtration rather than a mechanical device in the RR/SC area. The second part of the amendment was an existing regulation from the Stormwater Management Manual that would be inserted into the code and apply city-wide. Councilor Bettman said the Growth Management Policies (GMPs) included a statement that they should be used when considering changes to the land use code. She asked staff to explain the statement. Ms. Hansen responded the language came directly from the resolution that adopted the policies and staff felt it important to provide clarification on the purpose of GMPs. Councilor Bettman asked for a copy of the resolution. She asked if the resolution was adopted before LUCU, because she thought it was included to apply to the LUCU changes. Ms. Jerome recalled they were embedded in the 1998 resolution, before LUCU. Ms. Hansen, reading from a copy of the resolution signed in 1998, said, “These policies shall not be used in determining whether the City shall approve or deny individual land use applications.” Councilor Bettman stated that was not what the proposed amendment language said. The resolution was signed when the City Council was ramping up for the LUCU and she thought the purpose of the resolution was to see to it that the GMPs were used in the LUCU. Now that they had been adopted, they were policy, and the caveat was no longer necessary. The purpose of the provision should be the same as any provision listed under purpose in the code and she wanted the caveat removed. Ms. Jerome said she would look into the issue as there might be additional factors. Councilor Bettman said she could not understand what the definition of residential charactermeant. Ms. Hansen recognized there was a previous definition in the motion. After working with the Planning Commission and the community, the proposed definition was developed. She agreed to get back to Councilor Bettman on the definition. Councilor Bettman asked if in the provision added that required the applicant to meet with the neighbor- hood was there any provision requiring the content of the meeting to resemble the application. Ms. Hansen responded there was a provision that all of the materials provided at the meeting needed to be submitted as well as submission of a land use application within a certain timeframe of holding the meeting. Councilor Bettman said it was a waste of time to go through the exercise if the project discussed at the neighborhood did not end up going through the City. She asked if there was a way to make rounding up and rounding down applicable for infill and not new development. Ms. Hansen said one of the intents of having a split of lot sizes of 13,500 or greater, was the assumption that larger lots could be subdivided. Councilor Zelenka asked staff to follow up on his previous request for a status report on the GMPs, and which ones had been included in ordinance and if so where, and which ones had not. In response to Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Hansen read the motions passed by the Planning Commission on proposed Amendments 5 and 7. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 4, 2008 Page 8 Work Session