Laserfiche WebLink
meeting packet did not indicate what changes resulted from the commission's discussions about <br />those themes. He requested more information. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly also wanted a process to handle the "little things," such as one-sentence changes, that <br />might arise in the council's discussion. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested that the council indicate its support of when the record would close. He <br />recommended two weeks after the public hearing, or June 14. Ms. Bishow said that staff <br />recommended that written testimony be accepted through June 19. There was no objection from <br />the council to the staff recommendation. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor believed that the tree removal/replacement ordinance included in the meeting packet <br />was not complete. In response, Johnny Medlin of Public Works Department said that he did not <br />think the ordinance was incomplete in that tree replacement was addressed through the <br />administrative rules. He anticipated testimony about the topic. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that he did not understand how parking could be accommodated in the setback for <br />the flag lots. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked where the requirements for geotech reports were in the code. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked if a redevelopment could result in a requirement that the property owner remove <br />existing piping as a result of the open waterways ordinance. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Bishow said that the definitions section described <br />development activity, which included building additions, expansions, change of uses, etc. <br />Different standards included exemptions for when those requirements did not apply. She <br />suggested that staff complete a one-page matrix showing when standards were triggered. Mr. <br />Rayor asked that the standards for the tree ordinance and open waterways be included in the <br />matrix. <br /> <br />Ms. Levis left the meeting. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson suggested councilors contact Ms. Bishow ro informally review questions related <br />to the code. She noted her interest in a discussion of how the City Council should analyze the <br />City's zoning map, and what type of furor would it cause in the community if the City did such an <br />analysis. She did not believe that many community goals could be achieved with the zoning <br />patterns that currently exist in Eugene. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson requested more information on the types of staff positions that would be required <br />because of the code update. She wondered if any staff would be allocated for code <br />enforcement, nuisance abatement, or mediation. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner was pleased to hear the idea of future work program items to amend or revise the <br />updated code following its adoption. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked if the City was working to ensure that commercial land was used efficiently. <br />He cited campus industrial land as an example of his concerns. He not only wanted to preserve <br />uses, but increase the opportunity for uses to occur. He asked if FAR (Floor Area Ratios) were <br />recommended to any area outside the/TD area. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2000 Page 13 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />