Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Taylor reiterated that the fee was not punitive as it merely treated unoccupied buildings in the same way <br />as occupied buildings; but it might be a small incentive for property owners to secure tenants. She thought <br />any tenant was better than no tenant as occupancy created life on the streets. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to consider the issue in the context of an action <br />plan on the council’s Downtown Goal. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor moved to substitute motion Option 1 as reflected in the AIS. The motion died for lack of a <br />second. <br /> <br />The motion failed, 4:3; Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Zelenka, and Mr. Pryor voting yes. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked Mr. Pryor to repeat the motion and then indicated her desire to change her vote. Mr. <br />Klein indicated that would require the concurrence of the council. If the council did not concur, she could <br />request recognition by the chair and offer a motion. Responding to a question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Klein <br />said that Ms. Taylor was not suggesting she would offer a motion to reconsider, but that she be allowed to <br />change her vote; if the council agreed to that, the minutes would reflect that the vote as 4:3 in support of the <br />motion. If the motion was to reconsider, that would require Ms. Taylor to have been on the prevailing side <br />of the vote. Mr. Klein explained that the council could vote something down 25 times and someone could <br />make the same motion again if the item was back on the agenda. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling objected to Ms. Taylor’s desire to change her vote. <br /> <br /> <br />B. WORK SESSION: Gated Communities—Construction and Maintenance of Private Streets <br /> <br />Public Works Director Kurt Corey reported that staff understood the item to be a discussion of how private <br />streets came into being and the maintenance requirements and standards for those streets. He provided some <br />history of the topic, saying that the norm in Eugene was the dedication and construction of public streets. <br />There were about 550 centerline miles of roadway in the city; of those, 34 miles were private streets. The <br />Land Use Code Update had provided more clarification about when such streets would be created. Mr. <br />Corey said that the code now indicated that to the extent streets and alleys were constructed they would be <br />public unless deemed unnecessary to meet the City’s connectivity requirements, which were included in <br />Chapter 9 of the code. <br /> <br />Mr. Corey said that private streets must be built to the same structural standard as public streets and <br />certified by a licensed engineer. They must also meet other street standards such as intersection spacing, <br />centerline radius length, street grades, sight distance, minimum paving width, and curb height where curbs <br />were deemed necessary. Private streets were generally chosen by developers to reduce upfront costs. There <br />were also fewer amenities associated with such streets. Homeowner associations were typically responsible <br />for the maintenance of such streets through the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) <br />associated with the development in question. <br /> <br />Speaking to the question of whether the City could assume responsibility for the maintenance of such streets, <br />Mr. Corey said yes, and that would require the homeowners’ association to dedicate the needed right-of-way <br />and bring the street up to current City standards prior to the transfer. He said that an inquiry by staff <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 28, 2007 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />