CC Minutes - 07/28/03 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Adell McMillan, 55 West 39th Avenue, spoke on behalf of the Planning Commission to support the commission's recommendation that Ordinance B, which included the commission's revisions based on public testimony and further comments from staff and the City Attorney's office, be adopted. She expressed the commission's belief that the ordinance responded well to the remand issues. She noted that the commission had approved, in general, all of the provisions in Ordinance A, with the exception of the following: · Remove Section 9, 'Special Safety Requirements,' as the section would require needed housing projects to automatically include traffic calming based strictly on the projected increase in the traffic and would not provide direction on the location of the traffic calming feature, nor would it indicate whether the intent was to slow the speed of traffic or influence traffic routes. She noted that if staff believed that a traffic calming feature was not necessary, the applicant would still be required to go through the adjustment review process to get relief from that requirement. · Remove Section 10, 'Transit Facilities,' as this section automatically required a developer to provide a transit facility but would not allow for site specific considerations or changes that occur in transit routes. · Amend Section 11 to remove subsections (21) and (22), as this section contained adjustment review criteria for emergency medical travel time provisions and traffic calming features that were not necessary due to the recommendation to remove the actual standards. · Amend Sections 13, 14, 16, and 18 to remove reference to emergency medical travel time, as it had been felt that adoption of a map that was subject to daily changes in traffic, infrastructure improvements, and time of trip was poor zoning practice. Additionally, fire station improvements could occur at any time resulting in outdated ordinances. No general standards exist within the code that require a project to be located in an area that could be provided emergency medical services within a certain amount of time. For the above listed reasons, she reiterated the Planning Commission recommendation that the council adopt Ordinance B. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Home Builders Association, Lane County, conveyed the Home Builders Association support for Ordinance B. She expressed appreciation that the Planning Commission had listened to the concerns of the Home Builders Association and had addressed many of them. Ms. Cuellar cited 9.6505(3)(b), regarding streets and alleys, which directed developers to pave streets and alleys adjacent to the development site to the width specified in Eugene Code 9.6870 unless the streets and alleys were already paved to that width, with the provision that the City made a finding that it demonstrated consistency with the constitutional requirement. She stressed that the adjustment process did not apply to the needed housing statutes as it would eliminate the clear and objective standards. She asserted that such a requirement would discourage infill as it would create an undue burden on a developer. She also felt that this could create a situation in which a portion of a street next to a development would be paved to the wider parameters, while MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 8 Regular Meeting