Laserfiche WebLink
approaches, such as density mapping, were stalled because the council was "busy rolling back <br />the provisions out of context." <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he continued to attempt to craft compromises without success. Because the <br />council had rejected the ten-foot setback in the R-2 zone, he intended to oppose the motion. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to direct staff to amend Ordinance 3, <br /> sections 2 and 3, to allow an interior yard setback of less than five feet with <br /> an easement from the adjacent property owners and at least ten feet <br /> between buildings for flag and alley lots on land zoned R-2, R-3, and R-4. <br /> The motion passed, 4:3, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to direct staff to amend Ordinance 3, <br /> sections 2 and 3, to eliminate special setbacks for alley lots and apply the <br /> standard five-foot setback established prior to the code update. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to direct <br /> staff to amend Ordinance 3, sections 2 and 3, to require a ten-foot special <br /> setback for new buildings on existing alley lots. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman indicated her support for the amendment was predicated on her previous remarks. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked how the amendment differed from the council's action to grandfather flag lots. Ms. <br />Bettman responded that she believed that ten-foot setbacks were better than five-foot setbacks. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor determined from Ms. Bishow that the setback was an interior yard setback rather than a <br />street setback. <br /> <br /> The amendment to the motion failed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting <br /> in favor. <br /> <br /> The main motion passed, 5:2, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she was recently asked about a situation where a residential development <br />impacted nearby residents with additional storm water runoff. The resulting drainage patterns had <br />severely impacted a house downstream. The City took no responsibility for approving the <br />development that had occurred. She asked staff to comment at some time about the City's <br />liability in such instances and what could be done. She asked if the new development was <br />illegally displacing water onto other properties. Ms. Nathanson said she wanted to avoid serious <br />liability. Ms. Jerome indicated she would follow up with a memorandum. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend the time for the item. <br /> The motion failed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting yes. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 13, 2002 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />