Laserfiche WebLink
under discussion were not new; many were suggested in testimony or were the council's intent to <br />include all along. She believed that at some point the council had to stop the process. Ms. <br />Bettman wanted to complete the council's work on the code in December so it could review the <br />whole document over the holiday break. She did not object to holding public workshops to help <br />explain the revised code. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that the code was complex and he was worried that the changes the council was <br />making were significant. He had voted against some of the changes because he was concerned <br />they were not workable. He believed that the council would hear about those from the public. <br />Mr. Rayor did not favor another public hearing but did favor curbing the council's changes so that <br />the code people had testified about was the code they got. Mr. Rayor thought the code was <br />being convoluted and termed it "almost social engineering." <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that no one testifying had called for the draft code as presented. Everyone <br />testifying called for changes, and he thought staff and the council had done a good job capturing <br />testimony and reflecting it in the motions. He thought that the hearing the council held was <br />specifically intended to lead to the changes the council was making. Mr. Meisner did not think <br />the council would achieve unanimity among all factions of the community. He believed that the <br />stakeholders were monitoring the council's changes to the code. He did not support another <br />public hearing, adding that he did not find them particularly informative. He liked the workshops <br />proposed by staff and shared Mr. Kelly's concern about a delay in code adoption. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said he had three different people representing three different groups tell him that <br />they had given up on trying to monitor the process because of the speed at which it was moving. <br />All three had indicated they would consider legal action against the City if the draft code was <br />implemented. He added that the City should never legislate on the basis of the threat of legal <br />action. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow called the council's attention to revised motions prepared for the meeting, noting that <br />new motions were reflected in bold text. She also noted the distribution of a list of future work <br />program items. She said that the council also received a list of motions adopted through the <br />October 11 council meeting. <br /> <br />Housing Density/Appearance <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend the code to: <br /> la. Clarify that the 18-foot setback requirement for garages and carports in <br /> section 9.2750(4)(a) applies in situations where it is likely that cars will <br /> park in front of the garage and carport. <br /> lb. Amend 9.2741(2) Secondary Dwellings to require prior to issuance of a <br /> final occupancy permit, that the city record a notice with Lane County <br /> Deeds and Records that the secondary dwelling or primary dwelling <br /> shall remain owner-occupied. <br /> And further, to direct the City Manager to place the following issue on a list of <br /> potential future work program items: <br /> 2a. Creation of asset mapping. Investigate sites throughout the city <br /> suitable for increased density and provide the effected neighborhoods <br /> with the opportunity to influence the scale, design, and use of the <br /> property. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 2000 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />