02/13/1989 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e large it would not serve to encourage new housing, but a small fee would provide a meaningful return if directed to the appropriate purposes in the future. Ms. Bascom suggested that further analysis of the East Butte area may be appropriate before the council decides whether it should be excluded. Ms. Decker responded that the Planning Commission looked at the area in detail and received testimony from the Historic Review Board before making its recommendation for exclusion. She observed that the small number of presently vacant sites have the potential to receive historic structures moved from other areas. Ms. Bascom described the ordinance as an attempt to get more housing built and expressed a concern that too many restrictions could defeat that attempt. She recommended making the ten percent fee more understandable and stressing that the ordinance is intended to encourage more housing and is not restricted to low-income housing only. Mr. Holmer called attention to Section 2.9451s reference to prOV1Slons of a resolution adopted in 1977 and of ORS 307.600 to 307.690 and asked where those provisions appeared in materials provided to councilors. Mr. Sercombe responded that the ORS statutes do not appear in materials provided to council but are replicated in the standards and guidelines attached to the ordinance. Mr. Holmer asked whether the attached standards and guidelines for processing applications (Exhibit IIA") signalled a new administrative program or was a standard procedure. Ms. Decker described the attachment as an attempt to provide the City Manager with directions based on the council1s action. Mr. Sercombe explained that the State statute requires the council to allow or disallow, in individual cases, an exemption on the basis of three criteria: 1) whether there are public benefits by reason of the construction of the project; 2) whether the project otherwise complies with local laws and building code; and 3) whether the project complies with standards, guidelines, and policies. The resolution adopts those standards and guidelines which by State law are required to be one of the criterion to be considered. That adoption is in resolution format because it is a council action. Ms. Ehrman requested that the council cons;'der expanding the boundary of the affected area to include the property indicated in yellow on the map. Mr. Boles expressed concern that the area delineated in yellow was not recommended for inclusion by the Planning Commission, nor had the neighborhood had an opportunity to comment on its inclusion, so he preferred not including it at this time. Mr. Gleason explained that future boundary changes would require a public hearing by the council and by the school board, and he noted that interest in a project in that area has been indicated. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 13, 1989 Page 8