Laserfiche WebLink
for example, include windows on that side of the structure. He said that such flexibility could <br />provide for both density and livability. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr favored the motion and hoped that as the commission considered the issue in the future, it <br />would take into consideration Growth Management Study Policy 8, Promote the construction of <br />affordable housing. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked that in the future, staff provide context for the amendments, such as identifying <br />where the standard was applicable. She also asked staff to think of ways to improve the <br />commission's understanding of the council's discussion, as her review of the commission's minutes <br />did not indicate the commission always had an understanding of the concepts and objectives <br />discussed by the council. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 7:0. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the Planning Commission <br /> to 1) monitor implementation of revised geotechnical standards; 2) evaluate <br /> requiring a licensed Landscape Architect for certain kinds of projects, and 3) <br /> create options regarding the maximum front yard setbacks for commercial <br /> redevelopment projects. <br /> <br />Referring to the geotechnical standards, Mr. Rayor hope that the Public Works and Planning and <br />Development departments worked together in support of the commission's effort as it was his <br />impression that the geotechnical standards would apply to improvements to be taken over by the <br />public or improvements to be used by the public, such as the streets in a planned unit development. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr supported the motion with the caveat that the Planning Commission consider the impact <br />of requiring additional professional involvement for certain projects in light of Growth <br />Management Study Policy 8. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by <br /> directing the Planning Commission to look at the plant list and decide whether <br /> it should be an exclusionary or inclusionary list. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thought it would be a more manageable task to identify prohibited plant species <br />rather than attempt to identify all allowable plants in a single list and continue to amend the list of <br />plants with additions. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the nature of the list, Ms. Bishow said <br />that with regard to landscape materials, the code does not delineate the actual plants; it instead <br />stipulates plant spacing and number requirements. Landscaping only resulted in the right outcome <br />if the plants selected were drawn from a certain list, although Ms. Bishow acknowledged that a <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 14 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />