Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
such as the intensity of commercial and industrial development in its overall review of the Zoning <br />Map. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner questioned what was added by the motion. He suggested that the concept might well <br />occur anyway in the Zoning Map review. He asked if flag lots would be considered as opportunity <br />sites in the asset mapping. Ms. Childs said yes, ultimately. Mr. Meisner indicated opposition to <br />the motion. <br /> <br /> The motion failed, 4:3; Mr. Rayor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> prepare a scope of work and budget for the three post-Land Use Code <br /> Update high-priority work program items recommended by the Planning <br /> Commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked that the staff presentation include an option allowing all three items to go forward <br />at once. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to amend Item 10 to read: <br /> "Investigate an alternative path review process that would include design <br /> review." <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly recognized Mr. Papa's concerns but pointed out the council was merely requesting study <br />at this point. He did not want to mandate design review as part of every land use process, but also <br />did not want to narrow the commission's scope of investigation. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman opposed the amendment because the council had spent considerable time on the <br />wording of the item previously and she did not want to change it now without more discussion. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said he was not interested in having the Planning Commission investigate design review <br />as an independent process. If design review came before the council as a separate process, he <br />would vote against it. <br /> <br /> The motion to amend failed, 4:3; Mr. Rayor, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. Pap~ <br /> voting yes. <br /> <br /> The main motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Mr. Pap~ voting no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to approve timing and funding <br /> options 2B and 2C. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman moved to amend the motion to indicate that the council would <br /> postpone the Spring 2002 land use code amendments to Fall 2002, with the <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 2001 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />