CC MInutes - 10/30/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pap~ suggested that the motion could preclude locating a new general office use such as a federal courthouse directly adjacent to a newly reopened Millrace. He thought the City would prefer to have the building and landscape adjacent to the Millrace, as opposed to parking. Ms. Bishow indicated that if the motion was approved, staff would look at the maximum building setback and determine whether there was an ability to grant an adjustment if there was a broader public benefit to orienting a building toward a natural feature such as the Millrace. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Rayor, Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Pap~, and Mr. Farr voting no, and Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Meisner, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition to the motion, and it failed on a 5:4 vote. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to require the same 15-foot maximum building setback in GO as currently proposed for C-1, C-2, and C-3. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Rayor voting no. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to prohibit all above-ground utility boxes of all sizes, for services such as telephone, fiber optic, electrical, gas, and wide band digital, in required front yard setbacks. Ms. Nathanson indicated the intent of the motion was to improve the appearance of neighborhoods. Referring to the photographs included in the meeting packet of such boxes, she said the City could look forward to more such refrigerator-sized boxes, not fewer. Mr. Kelly agreed that the sods of examples pictured were undesirable. He suggested that the City consider a minimum size of the utility boxes being regulated to avoid regulating small front- yard cable television boxes. Ms. Nathanson said she did not object to such a minimum. Ms. Bishow indicated that staff would consider the council's legislative intent. Noting that some such utilities were required to be above-ground, and some were located in the public right-of-way, Mr. Rayor advocated for requiring screening of utility boxes. Mr. Fart asked staff if the City had data regarding cost-effective existing technology that could replace the boxes in question. Ms. Childs did not have such data. Mr. Farmer described different approaches utilities took in siting utility boxes. Ms. Bishow said she was unsure that the City could require screening in the public utility easement under its current working agreements with the utility companies, but staff could look into that. Mr. Meisner was not interested in screening utility boxes as an alternative to the approach in the motion. He wanted to prohibit utility boxes in the front yard setback but suggested there may be situations where that was the only option for siting, and in that case screening would be appropriate. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 30, 2000 Page 6 Work Session