Agenda Packet 9-24-18 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES – Eugene City Council Meeting September 10, 2018 Page 2 B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of a Resolution Annexing Land to the City of Eugene (Assessor’s Map 17-04-23-13, Tax Lot 109—located on 1127 and 1129 Maclay Drive)(City File: Jesse Brabham; A 18-2) D. Approval of a Resolution Annexing Land to the City of Eugene (Assessor’s Map 17-03-28-40, Tax Lots 1401 and 1402—located on 1 and 2 Chevy Chase Lane). (Chase/LeCompte; A 18-4) MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. PASSED 8:0 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Changing the Street Name of the Undeveloped Portion of Suzanne Way to Tennyson Avenue, as it Extends North From Crescent Avenue to Tennyson Avenue (City File SC 18-1) Mayor Vinis opened the public hearing and asked if any councilors needed to disclose any bias, onflicts of interest, ex parte communications or abstentions. Councilor Clark disclosed that before the meeting started he asked the person who is going to testify if she thought this was a good idea or not, but said he was capable of making an unbiased decision. Associate Planner Nick Gioello introduced the Public Hearing topic. Support 1. Teresa Bishow - spoke in support of the proposed street name change. Neutral No one spoke with a neutral stance on this issue. Oppose No one spoke in opposition to this issue. Mayor Vinis closed the Public Hearing and the record. 4. ACTION: A Resolution Granting a Measure 49 Claim and Waiving a Provision of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971 for Property Located Adjacent to 70 West 24th Place, Eugene, Oregon (Assessor’s Map 18-03-06-42, Tax Lot 2700) MOTION: Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt the Resolution Granting a Measure 49 Claim for Property Located adjacent to 70 West 24th Place, Eugene Oregon. Assistant Planner Dan Lawler and Senior Planner Gabe Flock introduced the action item. Council Discussion • Questions asked about the 2014 code amendments and why the city added a provision that restricted the building size on alley access lots. • Concern expressed that a decision made in this case would set a precedent for other Measure 49 cases, cases related to ADUs, or alley access lots. • This situation seems to be an unintended consequence stemming from the 2014 code changes and the lot in question does seem to qualify for an exemption to the rule. • Encourage re-opening the record to allow the public to make additional comments.