Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bishow reported that Ordinance No. 3 primarily addressed flag lots. She noted that support <br />for recommending this ordinance on the Planning Commission was not unanimous, with two <br />commissioners voting against it. She related that Commissioner Jon Belcher believed that a <br />broader residential infill analysis should be conducted and further reviews of design and <br />compatibility impacts should be completed prior to adjusting or relaxing the standards for flag lots. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow explained that shared parking issues would be included in a future ordinance as this <br />issue is inter-related with some other unresolved issues that the Planning Commission had yet to <br />address. She noted that the commission had looked at the possibility of limiting the size of <br />surface parking areas on commercial land with the intent of requiring business to build multi-level <br />parking structures, but that the commission had felt, given the current business market, that this <br />would be too limiting. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow related that the commission recommended that the council consider a commercial <br />land efficiency study in which the broader picture of commercial development would become more <br />clear. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thanked Ms. Bishow and the others for the staff introduction. He noted that some of the <br />commission's discussion was not included in the current ordinances being presented at the work <br />session. He requested that further ordinance recommendations include a work session as well. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the work program from the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) had been presented <br />to the council in July 2002, and that the re-adoption of the Chapter 6 amendments regarding work <br />on trees, and the "needed housing fixes" had been scheduled for fall 2002. He wondered if these <br />remand issues had been addressed. Ms. Childs responded that the City Attorney's Office has <br />been inundated with other ordinances. She said that the request was made through the review of <br />the work program, but that staff was limited and the work had not yet begun. Mr. Kelly felt that a <br />commitment had been made to the council, and that the City Council had discussed these <br />concerns in July as a result of this commitment. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman hoped that the council would focus on the nodal development ordinance as there is <br />a timeline on it. She shared the frustration that staff was processing items that she felt could wait <br />as they were not as timely as nodal development. She said that she thought the plan had been to <br />resolve the litigation that the code was currently embroiled in prior to moving on to things that <br />were not considered to be as crucial. She felt that there are not enough protections in place <br />because of the LUBA remand. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman endorsed the provision under special use limitations that specifies that new <br />development designed to be occupied by a single retail tenant could not exceed 50,000 square <br />feet. She expressed concern, however, that a business could bypass this limitation by locating, as <br />an example, a coffee cart inside the entrance. She wondered if the language could be "tightened <br />up." <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 noted that there had been many comments from realtors and builders regarding the 20 <br />percent slope, i.e., 2 inches of grade per 10 feet of land. He asked why there was nothing <br />regarding this in the code provisions being presented to the council. Ms. Bishow explained that <br />this issue had first been brought before the commission at a public hearing by an affected party. <br />She felt that the Planning Commission would not be forwarding a recommendation on this issue <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2002 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />