CC Minutes - 07/26/99 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pap~ clarified that the council was voting to deny the amendment when the Planning Commission had voted unanimously to recommend granting the amendment. Mr. Kelly disclosed an inadvertent ex parte contact with Gil James. He also noted that in his opinion the James Family Trust proposal did not meet the criteria for a refinement plan amendment. Mr. Meisner spoke in support the motion and said that he would continue to watch closely any proposed zone change that resulted in the loss of residential land. Mr. Rayor stated his support of the motion, saying that the amendment was at odds with the council's goals related to infill development and maintenance of the urban growth boundary in its present location and the property extended too far into the residential area for compatibility. Screening was inadequate to protect those properties. Mr. Lee declared an inadvertent ex parte contact with Gil James. He spoke in support of the motion. Mr. Lee said that nodal development was a great concept, but he was worried that the downtown would suffer as a result. He called for more council discussion about the future of downtown and about community planning, adding he was unlikely to approve more commercial designations without that discussion. Mayor Torrey called for any other councilors who wished to declare ex parte contacts. Mr. Meisner declared an ex parte contact with Gil James, noting it was focused on process, not the substance of the amendment. Mayor Torrey reported that he had an ex parte contact with Gil James on a process matter only. Ms. Nathanson noted that the applicant could put a single-family house on the site without a change in designation, and suggested that was not a means to achieve the City's density goals. She pointed out that if the amendment was approved and the property rezoned, any development would have to conform with the democratically developed refinement plan. Mayor Torrey commented that if there was a 4:4 vote he would vote in opposition to the motion. He stated his concern that the council had allowed the applicant to go through considerable effort only to be told at the last minute that the City Council wanted to make a statement. Roll call vote; the motion passed 5:3, with councilors Nathanson, Fart and Pap~ voting in opposition, and became Ordinance Number 20162. V. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE EMERGENCY CODE; ADDING SECTION 2.10555; AMENDING SECTION 2.1990 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 197'1; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Environmental Manager Chuck Solin provided the background on the City Council work session discussion of June 28, 1999. He noted that the City lacked an ordinance that allowed a MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 1999 Page 7 7:30 p.m.