Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Taylor asked if the tree ordinance could be removed from the update and processed <br />separately soon. Ms. Jerome responded that the provisions of the ordinance were incorporated <br />into the code to ensure that the development community was aware of what was expected in <br />terms of tree preservation in a permitted development. The provisions could be removed, but <br />that would create the need for another review process that would require more time. Ms. Taylor <br />did not see why more time was required. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked that each time the council discussed a proposed code section, the <br />consequences of what was being proposed be made clear for both the council and the public. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey confirmed with the council that it would like to see a comprehensive review of the <br />City's zoning map soon after the adoption of the Land Use Code Update. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner observed that the update had been in progress for some time, and he wished to <br />complete it soon. He noted the development that had occurred since the update had <br />commenced that the City had been unable to either stop, affect, or improve. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that the timing of the work sessions was designed to address the council's <br />desire to complete the update by the end of the year as well as the concerns raised by the "Gang <br />of Four" regarding the unintended consequences of the code. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow said staff had examined the testimony closely and was doing careful analysis of the <br />standards in the code to ensure that they worked. She encouraged the council to contact staff <br />with questions about particular code sections prior to the work sessions. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr encouraged staff to do what it could to explain the environmental and economic costs of <br />the update to the public. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner wanted to ensure that the code provided citizens with choices in housing and helped <br />the community to preserve the supply of buildable land in the long-term. He said that the <br />consequences of doing nothing should also be analyzed. <br /> Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Farr, to direct the City Manager to retain <br /> the key applicable code sections in the April 2000 Draft Eugene Land Use <br /> Code related to Theme #1: General. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow discussed key design principles related to traditional neighborhood development. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that there were many changes he wanted to make in the section related to <br />traditional neighborhood development. He asked if the revised code would prevent the types of <br />fencing along Gilham Road. Ms. Bishow said yes. Within the setback, property owners could do <br />landscaping to provide a screen, but not a six-foot high fence. Mr. Kelly considered that a <br />welcome improvement. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted his interest in eliminating double frontage lots and asked for council concurrence <br />so that staff could draft new text. Mr. Pap8 thought the idea was good in theory but questioned <br />its practicality, given the number of undeveloped lots in existing subdivisions. Ms. Bishow said <br />that the code could be written to apply only to new subdivisions. She said that staff could return <br />with provisions to eliminate double frontage lots, and the provisions would include exceptions to <br />account for certain situations. Mr. Pap8 suggested that an exception be double frontage lots on <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2000 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />