Item 2A: Approval of City Coucnil Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly requested a copy ofthe minutes where the Planning Commission adopted the recommendations before the council for inclusion in the October 24 meeting packet. Mr. Kelly referred to item 32, which would add a provision to the code clarifying the prohibition on home occupations in flag lots, and suggested that for the purpose of encouraging compact urban development and minimizing vehicle miles traveled, the City should be doing everything it could to encourage low- impact home occupations. Ms. Bettman said the code needed to be written in a manner that allowed people to understand the impact of the code section on their property or neighborhood. She suggested that statf look to the rationale it developed for each code anlendment, which was generally in clear language, as a model. Ms. Bettman believed that the council was being asked to roll back some of the changes it adopted through the Land Use Code Update, and people did not understand the implications of what was being proposed. She said that needed to be fixed. Ms. Bettman said the purpose of the code was to create predictability and regulate uses and buildings in a way that protected public health and safety. The City also needed to implement certain local and State policies related to transp0l1ation goals and to create an environment that was cost-effective and efficient for service delivery. She perceived some of the changes as being minor but believed others constituted a slow erosion of the built environment. It seemed like the staff objective was to streamline the process, and make it easier and more pem1issive. While it was important that developers had easy-to-understand, reasonable code provisions, the element of the code related to the protection of people and neighborhoods, preservation of the existing character of the city, and the provision of cost-effective services was lost. Mr. Poling solicited a second round of comments and questions. Mr. Kelly spoke to the second phase, noting the time line for that process had slipped, and requesting an . update on the time line. Mr. Nystrom said staff proposed to kick-start that second phase as soon as the present phase was completed. Staff had been working with the Planning Commission on the public outreach element of that phase and preliminary planning for the process. He anticipated that staff would update the council following its work with the comlnission. Mr. Kelly asked when the public would be able to provide suggestions for changes. Mr. Nystrom anticipated that would occur around January 2006. Ms. Bettman noted her concem that items 24 (clarify that an exception to maximum lot size can be granted to protect natural resource) and 29 (eliminate requirement for site review for wetland restoration approved by the mitigation bank within the \WB and \WP overlay zones) were not minor in nature. She asked if the exception to the maximum lot size could be spurred by, for example, an expressed desire to preserve a tree that could be removed later. She said that it appeared the provision could decrease density in an expensive residential neighborhood. Item 29 appeared to defer decision-making about uses in the natural resource zones to the National Environmental Policy Act. Ms. Taylor referred to item 73 and asked why staff proposed to eliminate the requirement that a PUD design team must include a men1ber of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). Mr. Nystrom said the AICP certification was not a requirement for planning professionals. He said staff questioned what value the requirement brought to the team. He suggested the council consider how many require- ments needed to be in code ~IS opposed to included in the submittal requirements, and the effectiveness of the requirement. He said staff had not found the requirement to be an effective tool in "raising the bar" for competence among members of a development team. MINUTE~Eugene City Council Work Session October 12,2005 Page 8