CC Minutes - 06/23/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the section of the code involved addressed off-street, public rights-of-ways, such as bicycle and pedestrian ways. He was concerned by the lack of guidance. Ms. Jerome said that the table would be modified to include sidewalks. Mr. Kelly questioned whether that was sufficient, pointing out that there were places in the code that required public ways that would be pedestrian-only pass-throughs, such as from the end of a cul-de-sac to an adjoining streets. Ms. Jerome said that staff would respond to the question with a memorandum. Mr. Kelly referred to the second page of the Agenda Item Summary, page 8 of the meeting packet, which mentioned the commission's recommendation that the requirement for the provision of transit facilities for needed housing be deleted. He asked what obligations the developer had when following the discretionary path of the code. While he understood the recommendation, Mr. Kelly was concerned that a large planned unit development going through the needed housing path would have no need to provide accommodations for transit. Ms. Jerome indicated Planning Division staff would follow up. Mr. Pap~ indicated his support for Ordinance B, saying he thought the Planning Commission's recommendations were appropriate. He asked how staff responded to Bill Kloos' general statement that the standards in the LUCU were pushing developers to the discretionary path as opposed to the clear and objective path. Ms. Jerome disagreed with Mr. Kloos' statement. She said that it was difficult in certain cases to turn what had been a potentially discretionary standard into something clear and objective without making it overly strict. For that reason, in many cases, staff chose to retain the discretionary language but moved it into the adjustment process. She said staff had reviewed the provisions with the thought of avoiding extra cost and delay, and used the Planning Commission and the public to test the results. Mr. Pap~ asked if there had been any discussion with developers. Ms. Childs indicated not directly; the commission received communications from Roxie Cuellar of the Lane County Home Builders Association as well as from Mr. Kloos. Mr. Pap~ said he would have appreciated direct outreach to developers and builders about what would increase community housing costs. Mr. Meisner expressed appreciation for the work done by the Planning Commission and staff. He asked how the proposed set of amendments fit in with the thrust of the LUCU. Ms. Childs believed that Ordinance B fit very well with the overall thrust of the Land Use Code. She added that had been a concern for the commission. Mr. Meisner indicated tentative support for Ordinance B. Mayor Torrey called for a second round of questions. Ms. Bettman referred to Section 9.6845(2), which staff and the commission proposed to delete from Ordinance A. She objected to the deletion as the provision would apply to very few developments and she thought it should be retained. Ms. Bettman addressed the issue of the four-minute response, saying that dropping the requirement would facilitate development outside a four-minute response time and then create pressure for the construction of a new fire station, incurring new taxpayer costs as there was no systems development charge for new fire stations. She wanted to retain the provision. Ms. Bettman said that it was her conclusion that the State statute related to needed housing was to ensure that municipalities provided sufficient zoning opportunities for such things as Iow-income and farm worker housing. However, the City had not defined locally what needed housing was. MINUTES - Eugene City Council June 23, 2003 Page 5 Work Session