Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Amendment 7, Required Parking for Multi-Family Developments. The Planning Commission voted 7:0 to recommend that the City Council not adopt the proposed amendment at this time, and refer the topic to the ICS project for further consideration to allow for a more comprehen- sive review and analysis of the issues and policy choices as well as an identification of long term solutions. Ms. Hansen said a very similar motion was made on Amendment 5, Building Height Transitions. There was a caveat at the end that said, However, in the event the City Council decided to adopt an amendment related to this topic, the Planning Commission would recommend the adoption of a revised proposal put forth by the neighborhood. Councilor Zelenka thought the Planning Commission’s recommendations were vague in that they did not say no, but rather referred them to the ICS project. He asked what that would mean in terms of process and timing. Ms. Gardner said putting the amendments into the ICS process would have to be prioritized with the other elements of the ICS work program. The Planning Commission felt it did not have sufficient information to make a recommendation on what the impacts would be because they felt the proposed amendments were not minor, and the impacts on density calculation and other issues were not clear. It was felt there was a good process in place with the ICS that the committee should be working on long term solutions that had been analyzed and vetted, and then a long term recommendation from the ICS. The process was moving ahead, and was not an indefinite process but rather an on-going process. The City would always be working on ICS issues to ensure the Code reflected the community character and concerns being voiced by residents. Ms. Gardner said the resident-based task teams chaired by residents, were working through the public process and prioritization. An update could be provided for the council on the status of the task teams’ work. She concurred with Councilor Zelenka that the council could communicate it’s priorities to the task teams. Councilor Ortiz had received a letter from Susan Ban regarding concerns about minor code amendments which Ms. Hansen had not had an opportunity to review. Referring to stormwater provisions, Councilor Ortiz asked if those provisions referred to bioswales. These were important to the RR/SC area, which was part of the neighborhood character in which the residents had a sense of a rural feel and wanted to keep that feeling. She too was glad to see provisions for dogs included in the amendments. Councilor Clark asked how the stormwater issue came forward, and if it was brought forward by the neighborhood association. Ms. Hansen said the issue came from the residents of RR/SC. Councilor Clark asked if the reference to resident-based task teams referred to City of Eugene residents. Ms. Gardner said the ICS process consisted of community members from a broad base including the business community, the design field, and realtors, with a stress on resident participation. The Planning Commission worked with key stakeholders who had been active in the process. Councilor Clark asked how much of the policy change the council was considering was being driven by City of Eugene residents and how much of it was driven by Lane County residents? If the council was MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 4, 2008 Page 9 Work Session