CC Minutes - 02/26/01 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Councilor Kelly said that the motion was another attempt to clarify an earlier action. He pointed out the changes proposed for the section. Councilor Rayor suggested the reference to "the business park" in sentence four of the motion be changed to "a business park." He thought the original text was preferable as it covered all the different types of development that could occur. Ms. Bishow said that the initial language could potentially allow a business park to be divided into smaller parcels with different ownerships. The new text stipulated that all land inside the original business park boundaries must be looked at. She added that there was nothing now in the code to prevent someone from calling already developed property a business park. Mr. Farmer suggested the council address that loophole with the addition of a clause that stated "For purposes of inclusion of office space within a business park, industrial square footage existing on (effective date of ordinance) can not be included for calculation purposes in business parks unless the industrial square footage was approved and constructed through a site review or planned unit development procedure prior to (effective date of ordinance)." Councilors Kelly and Taylor accepted Mr. Farmer's suggested text as a friendly amendment to the motion. Roll call vote; the motion as amended passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to replace the references to April 1, 2001, with whatever the effective date of the ordinance was. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Torrey raised an issue regarding communications from citizens who were pointing out problems in the new code. Ms. Bishow responded that in the period before the code went into effect, staff would pay close attention to correspondence from the development community or other interest groups that certain code provisions would be difficult or costly to implement. Councilor Nathanson referred to an e-mail communication from Philip Farrington regarding restrictions adopted by the council regarding parking between a building and the street and asked if the requirement mentioned was a bad idea or an oversight. She said that the restrictions might not work for hospitals and other uses where people with disabilities need to park close by. Ms. Bishow said that the council was very clear about the topic and had decided to restrict parking between a building and the street. She said that the use mentioned by Councilor Nathanson could go through an adjustment review. Ms. Bishow did not think it appropriate to single out a specific commercial use as receiving an outright modification to the standards without more analysis. Councilor Kelly added that there were design alternatives that could address the concern expressed by Mr. Farrington. Councilor Nathanson asked for a staff response to a letter from the University of Oregon. Mr. Farmer indicated staff only had not yet had time to review the letter, which had only been received that day. City Manager Johnson said the council would consider Council Bill 4760 by number only. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 17 Regular Meeting