My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 02/09/00 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2000
>
CC Minutes - 02/09/00 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2010 10:28:18 AM
Creation date
8/1/2005 2:37:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/1/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
get a permit issued from the Permit and Information Center, only to be told it was being held up by Public <br />Works Department. He said that it was frustrating. Ms. Andersen said that was not the way the system was <br />supposed to function. Mr. Papd encouraged the City to get all permit functions in one location. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart agreed with Mr. Papd that it would be more efficient if permit review and issuance occurred in one <br />location. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart spoke of his love of trees and said that most people who buy houses plant trees. He wanted to see <br />the City support the growth of trees on private property. However, he was concerned about the impact of new <br />fees and new regulations on people building entry-level houses. He said that the council must do what it can <br />to keep housing in the community affordable. When regulations affected the cost of new housing, the cost of <br />existing housing rose as well. Mr. Fart said that he would continue to ask staff about the monetary impact of <br />new regulations on a new house. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked if the City would attempt to regulate lot shape and the placement of open spaces to <br />preserve vegetation. She said that in the past she had raised some "real world" examples regarding conflicts <br />between planned unit development tree planting plans and appropriate plantings for the location in question. <br />She asked how the City could achieve its goals when it had not examined how the legal chain of responsibility <br />for tree preservation in planned unit developments operated between developer, builder, and home buyer. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor noted his concurrence with Mr. Fart's remarks about the relationship between regulations and <br />affordable housing. He hoped all City policies helped to make entry-level housing affordable. He said that <br />large houses on large lots needed to be looked at more carefully in terms of their long-term impacts on the <br />community. He said that his neighborhood was a good candidate for infill development but he doubted any <br />neighbors wanted a 6,000 square foot house next door. Mr. Rayor wanted to see smaller houses appreciated <br />more by the City. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to increase the Urban Forestry Program <br /> funding by $25,000 from the General Fund contingency for fiscal year 2000. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly offered as a friendly amendment that staff would provide information to the council in a timely <br />fashion about how increased staffing and permit review would be provided through fiscal year 2001. The <br />friendly amendment was acceptable to Mr. Lee and Ms. Taylor. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked if the process would include any review of the potential of consolidating permit activities in <br />the Planning and Development Department. City Manager Jim Johnson said that subject was within his <br />purview, and he would meet with staff to discuss the best way to organize the delivery of permit review <br />services. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart indicated he would oppose the motion because it would slow the permitting process and raise the <br />cost of housing. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 5:2; Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Fart voting no. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs reviewed the four options for processing revisions to Chapter 9 Tree Preservation, focusing on <br />Option 3, Adopt Changes to Chapter 9 Tree Preservation Regulations in Conjunction with Land Use Code <br />Update, but Hold an Additional Planning Commission Public Hearing on Tree Preservation Regulations <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2000 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.