CC Minutes - 07/09/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

question, averring that they were “just primed, ready to go” and that there were “people lined up” to do the developments. Mr. Zelenka maintained that the council needed to prevent “really bad impacts” from happening while the ICS project was in process, which was why he thought the ordinances should be passed now and repealed later if the ICS project came up with something better. Mr. Zelenka believed the area would continue to be dense. Mr. Zelenka said that automobiles shopping for a spot, particularly in the west University area, had a dramatic impact on livability and should also be considered in the decision before the council. Mr. Zelenka noted the gap between the required parking for the proposed seven-story apartment house and the amount that would be required if the amendment passed, and said the revision would still result in a spill- over effect. He said the number of cars in the neighborhood was a big problem. Mr. Zelenka said he was “totally with people who think we should stop building more stuff for cars” but the reality of the automo- biles “smacked” into the livability of the neighborhoods. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Hansen explained the proposed code provision for fences on collector streets (item 8), and Ms. Ortiz indicated satisfaction with that provision. Ms. Bettman said she was hearing opposition to the proposed regulations from the “very same councilors” who supported the downtown code amendments. She considered them mirror images of each other. Ms. Bettman responded to the issue raised by Ms. Ortiz regarding the human services providers. She said the letter the council received from CALC was interesting but did not contain much information. She had “immediately” written back to the executive director about the basis for the conclusions that the code amendments would affect the availability of low-income housing and she had received no answer. Ms. Bettman averred that many nonprofits were recruited to take positions on issues that may or may not be part of their mission. She said the letter had not mentioned the downtown code amendments. Ms. Bettman suggested that CALC, like many nonprofit agencies, had been influenced by a wealthy contributor to take the position it had and regretted the letter was sent because she did not think its conclusions were substanti- ated. Mr. Zelenka expressed support for item 8. Speaking to item 3, the residential density calculations, he requested examples of what a 13,500 square foot development would look like. He said he would be “okay” with the roundup as long as it was not adjacent to R-1 zoning. Speaking to item 14, which was intended to provide for neighborhood input into development, Mr. Zelenka objected that it only applied to subdivisions of more than seven lots and wanted information about how many such developments there were. He preferred that the provision apply to all developments, no matter the size, so that developers had to go to the neighborhood association and talk to them about the proposal. He called for the inclusion of a remedy in case a developer failed to make a meeting notice. Speaking to item 16, related to site review, Mr. Zelenka objected to the fact that there was no way to retroactively impose site review after planned unit development approval if, in the period between approval and development, the City “had better science.” He wanted to impose the site review requirement if the developer had not developed the property within a two-year period. Mr. Poling clarified he was not opposed to items 5 and 7 but wanted to ensure that what was done was correct, which was why he preferred to direct those items to the ICS project with an opportunity to correct any unintended consequences. Mr. Poling determined from Ms. Hansen that the council would have an opportunity to consider revisions to MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2008 Page 4 Work Session