Laserfiche WebLink
Councilors Lee and Taylor accepted Mr. Klein's suggestion as a friendly amendment to the <br />amendment. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Councilor Pap~, Mr. Klein responded that the friendly amendment <br />provided a date certain for those applications which were subject to the State statute and had <br />essentially the same effect as deleted subsection (2). Councilor Pap~ questioned the fairness of <br />eliminating subsection 6.660(2) for those who had already submitted applications. He said he <br />could not support the amendment. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly supported the amendment. He said that if a property existed in a separate <br />parallel universe and had no impact on other properties he would agree with Councilor Pap~, but <br />the impact of the fill affected other properties and the common good. He hoped that at the time <br />of application, staff would work with the developer to determine how any waterway on a property <br />could be accommodated on the property. <br /> <br />Councilor Nathanson asked staff to explain why it recommended deleting subsection 2. Mr. Lyle <br />said that staff did not think there were many applications in process that would be affected. He <br />thought it was a small number. He added that he did not think the proposal should be a surprise <br />to anyone in the development community given the several months of discussion that had taken <br />place about the topic. Mr. Lyle noted that staff already works with property owners to incorporate <br />waterways into developments. <br /> <br />Councilor Pap~ agreed with Councilor Kelly that a development proposal could possibly impact <br />an adjoining property and for the common good something different should be done, but he felt <br />that property owner should be compensated for the common good. The property owner should <br />not be penalized by the ordinance. <br /> <br /> Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion carried, 5:1; councilor Pap~ <br /> voting no. <br /> <br /> Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to amend the motion by <br /> adopting Amendment 4, Mitigation Requirement. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly noted his support for the amendment and asked staff why it did not recommend <br />adoption of the amendment initially. Mr. Lyle said it was an oversight, and staff recommended <br />the amendment. <br /> <br /> Roll call vote; the motion to amend carried unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br /> Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to amend the motion by <br /> adopting Amendment 5, Mandatory Enforcement. <br /> <br />Councilor Nathanson said that she was satisfied with the original language of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly asked if the legislative intent was sufficient to determine the council's interest in <br />pursuing enforcement for material violations of the ordinance. Mr. Klein said yes. He said that <br />the council had made it clear in its discussions that it wanted material violations to be addressed <br />through a penalty, mitigation, or both. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 24, 2000 Page 8 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />