CC Minutes - 11/26/01 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. McVey called attention to minor corrections made to the ordinance to clarify its provisions. Mr. Klein referred to sections 9 and 10 of the proposed ordinance, which included blank spaces to fill in to indicate which pads of the ordinance would be delayed for six months. He recommended that the second line of Section 9 be revised to read "...where required by Section 39 of the Eugene Charter of 1976, sections of this ordinance shall become effective six months..." The second line in Section 10 should be amended to read "...except for those sections covered by Section 9 of this ordinance, this ordinance shall become effective..." City Manager Johnson said that the council would consider Council Bill 4773, an ordinance concerning assessment procedures; amending sections 7.010, 7.100, 7.125, 7.130, 7.150, 7.160, 7.175, 7.250, 7.295, 7.299, 7.400, 7.405, 7.407, 7.410, 7.420, and 7.245 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and providing an effective date. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved that the bill, with the unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time, and that the bill include the recommendations of the legal counsel. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the motion by deleting the minimum driveway widths in Section 7.410(1)(c) and (d). Councilor Bettman said the City currently had no minimum driveway widths, and she believed such minimums took away flexibility from property owners who might prefer a ten-foot driveway width. She also believed it was consistent with the Land Use Code, where the council removed the minimum driveway widths. Councilor Kelly noted that the Council ad hoc Committee on Street Improvement Funding had not discussed the issue of driveway widths, and requested staff clarification as to why the minimum widths were added to the ordinance. Mr. McVey said that staff was proposing a minimum width to avoid the construction of potentially small and unsafe driveways. Councilor Kelly suggested the issue should have been addressed in the Land Use Code; he thought it seemed oddly imposed in the ordinance. If a person wanted to build their own house and use a motorcycle as a means of transportation, that individual might not want a 12-foot driveway. Mr. McVey responded that the Land Use Code did not regulate improvements in the public right-of-way; those improvements are regulated by Chapter 7 of the Eugene Code. Councilor Kelly clarified that the distinction was between the width of the driveway and driveway apron. Mr. McVey concurred. Councilor Kelly indicated support for the amendment. Councilor Rayor pointed out that one could have as narrow a driveway as one wished, but as one began to back into the street, a turning movement was required, requiring some minimum width. He believed that future owners would be disadvantaged by such a choice. He did not support the amendment. Councilor Meisner said he had not been inclined to support the amendment until Mr. McVey's response. He thought the issue more appropriately addressed in the Land Use Code, and expressed the wish that Planning staff was present to endorse the Public Works recommendation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 17 Regular Meeting