09/24/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Holmer asked if the question could be divided to separately address - the five issues. City Attorney Tim Sercombe said a motion was necessary to divide the question unless the maker of the motion wished to withdraw the motion. Mr. Obie was he was unwilling to withdraw his motion. He said that amendments could be made to reflect any disagreement with the recommendations. Councilor Bascom suggested that the council could amend the motion to approve the Planning Commission recommendations on which consensus had been reached and then develop a separate motion addressing the remaining two issues. Mr. Hansen moved to amend the motion by revising the Transit goal recommendations to model future transit ridership at seven percent, with an intermediate goal of four percent in 1995. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Ehrman agreed with the three-tiered approach, but she preferred the per capita trip-making rate because it better reflected the action of the City. She said, however, she would support the recommendations of the Planning Commission. In response to a request for clarification on the motion by Ms. Bascom, Mr. McKinley reviewed the recommendations of the Planning Commis- sion. Councilor Holmer said he favored three of the commission's recommenda- tions but disagreed with the recommendations on Trip Making and Level of Service. Roll call vote on the original motion; the motion carried 5:2; Councilors Obie, Ball, Ehrman, Hansen, and Schue voting aye; and Councilors Bascom and Holmer voting nay. e Councilor Obie said that the City must at some point decide what was sufficient. He said that the difference between Level of Service D and E might not be critical, but that going to a higher level of service would negatively impact the City in its attempts to make any changes. Councilor Schue thanked those individuals involved in developing the Evaluation Report. Councilor Bascom commented that the report was of excellent quality, stating that it had been easy to read and understand. Councilor Hansen temporarily left the meeting at this time. B. Appeal of Sign Code Board of Appeals Decision (904 West 6th Avenue (memo, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Sign Code Inspector Barbara McDonald stated that Michael O'Connell, the appellant in the case, was unable to attend the hearing because of an emergency situation. City Attorney Tim Sercombe said it would be appropriate to set the item over to a date certain. This would preclude the necessity of renotifying the parties involved. He did not feel it would be procedurally fair to proceed with the appeal in the absence of the appellant. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to set the item over until October 22, 1984. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 1984 Page 5