Laserfiche WebLink
adjustments would be decided by the Planning Director and appealed to the Hearings Official. <br />The table would be adjusted accordingly. In the case of a major adjustment, the appeal would go <br />to the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Ms. Jerome recommended the following motion text: <br /> <br /> To direct the City Manager to amend Section 9.9900s Adjustment Review to <br /> clarify that 'minor adjustments "to clear and objective standards shaft be <br /> reviewed by the Planning Director with an appeal to the Hearings Official <br /> (Type II procedure). In cases where there are "significant adjustments"being <br /> requested, the initial decision shaft be made by the Planning Director with an <br /> appeal to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shaft make a <br /> decision foflowing a public hearing. Amend the code to also include new <br /> draft criteria for the Planning Commission to consider while reviewing plans <br /> for compliance with key design elements. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly withdrew his amendment. Mr. Pap8 withdrew his second to the amendment. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to amend the motion as stated by <br /> Ms. Jerome. The amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br /> The main motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend Section 9.8325(7)(i) Tentative PUD Approval Criteria--Needed <br /> Housing to require that new dwellings be within a four-minute response time <br /> for emergency medical services. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman believed that the proposed five-minute response time in the criteria should be <br />reduced to four minutes, which was the response time within emergency medical services could <br />make a difference in saving a life. She said that Matt Shuler of the Fire and Emergency Medical <br />Services (FEMS) Department was supportive of the change. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked if the motion was about emergency services or about housing. She said <br />that a four-minute response time was the City's objective, but there were still places in the city <br />that do not receive a four-minute response time. Some of those areas were on the geographic <br />perimeter, and other sites were in hard-to-reach locations in the hills. Ms. Nathanson asked if <br />the motion was to preclude housing that could not be responded to in four minutes, or would it be <br />used as an argument to fund new fire facilities. She questioned whether codifying such a <br />standard opened the City to any new degree of liability. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer acknowledged gaps in the City's four-minute emergency medical response time. He <br />said that he would want to investigate whether decreasing the response time in the criteria would <br />create a situation where needed housing was not covered by the four-minute coverage, and if <br />that would create nonconforming use for certain needed housing in the areas without four-minute <br />coverage. Mr. Farmer added he understood the City currently enjoyed five-minute response time <br />over the entire community. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />