CC Minutes - 10/08/01 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Rayor noted that staff was proposing changing the code language on lot coverage back to the old code language and added that the staff proposal was to eliminate the requirement for a certified landscape architect to approve landscaping plans. He raised concern that people who testified were unclear as to the intent of the staff recommendations. Councilor Meisner expressed his concern that there was not better communication between staff and the community. Ms. Bishow said that future amendments could have public information sessions before council meetings to keep the community aware of staff's intentions and the Planning Commission's recommendations. Councilor Rayor said that he had submitted testimony on geotechnical standards to Ms. Bishow, the former Public Works Director, the former City Engineer, and the new Public Works Director, and none of it had been reflected in staff's documentation. He raised concern that there was not adequate communication between the departments. Councilor Rayor questioned the need for requiring geotechnical testing for grades above 3 percent grades. He noted that this was essentially all areas. He cited his testimony that had used the City of Gresham's requirements which he believed were better planned. He raised concern that the new code language was too restrictive. Regarding flag lots, Councilor Rayor said the City was doing an injustice to current owners of flag lots by implementing the current code language. Ms. Bishow said that this was the first time that geotechnical standards had been dealt with in the Land Use Code. She clarified that the level one analysis was only triggered if there was a public improvement, such as a street, with slopes less than ten percent or if the property was subject to site review subdivision or planned unit development. She said that staff would review the matter to see if further adjustments were needed. Councilor Bettman expressed her appreciation for the testimony but said that there was no one representing the salmon or mothers looking for a safe, walkable, streetscape. She stressed her need to balance the testimony with other kinds of considerations. She said that she would support the return to old code language on lot coverage but would not support a return to old language on maximum driveway width. She said that the idea for maximum driveway width was for pedestrian-friendly streets and neighborhoods and looking at impervious surfaces. She raised concern over front yards that resembled parking lots. She remarked that plenty of communities across the country were requiring narrowed driveways. Councilor Kelly thanked staff for getting the revisions to the council in a timely fashion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 2001 Page 6 Regular Session