Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to delete Section 17 from Ordinance A and direct the City Manager to send the issue addressed by the pro- posed Section 17, back to the Planning Commission for further review. Councilor Bettman stated she would not support the motion as she understood the drainage ditches were already protected under administrative rule and putting that into the code would not impact the land supply. She said using drainage ditches to manage stormwater was a beneficial practice that also reduced mainte- nance costs. Councilor Clark asked if lands that were subject to the current administrative rule were still listed in the inventory of buildable lands. Ms. Hansen said they were in the inventory. Councilor Clark pointed out that wetlands in West Eugene, which the community wished to protect, were also part of the inventory of commercial/industrial land. He favored respecting the character of the River Road/Santa Clara area and protecting the historic nature of dealing with stormwater, but he felt the City should be honest about that protection and take the subject lands out of the inventory of buildable lands. He was concerned that lands that were currently considered to be buildable were being made unbuildable. Ms. Bettman said the West Eugene wetlands plan slated property for protection with the caveat that it could be developed if the wetlands were mitigated. She gave the Hyundai/Hynix site as an example. The vote on the motion to amend was a 4:4 tie; councilors Taylor, Bettman, Ortiz and Zelenka voting no, and councilors Solomon, Poling, Pryor and Clark voting yes. The Mayor cast a vote against the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to retain the current limita- tion on the number of dogs permitted without constituting a “kennel” by: 1) Deleting the proposed replacement of the number 3 in the definition of “ken- nel” in Section 2 of Ordinance A so that the definition retains the following phrase: “premises on which three or more dogs over six-months of age are kept or maintained…” 2) Amending the new test proposed for EC9.2741(2)(a)5 in Section 8 of Ordi- nance A to replace the “3” with a “2.” 3) Deleting the proposed replacement of the number 3 in the definition of “non- commercial dog kennel” in Section 28 of Ordinance A so that the definition re- tains the following phrase: “premises where three or more dogs, over six- months of age, are kept or maintained…” Councilor Poling explained that his motion was responding to citizen concerns regarding neighbors with three or more dogs on their property. He saw no reason to increase the permitted number of dogs from two to three and noted the motion allowed fostering dogs on a temporary basis. Councilor Taylor opposed the motion. She said the proposed change was humane and gave examples of situations where marriage or a death in the family could result in a household having three dogs. Councilor Solomon recalled that the amendment was requested by kennel owners, who wanted the limit increased to three dogs. She was not certain of the implications of Councilor Poling’s motion. Ms. Hansen said the City did not define “dog keeping;” that was done through the definition of a “kennel,” which was defined as three or more dogs. She said if someone owned three dogs that could classify as a kennel, which was not allowed in a residential zone.