Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

scheduling a hunting trip just because it was hunting season should not preclude the council from conducting its business in Councilor Poling’s absence. Councilor Kelly said that the council usually honored such requests, but sometimes did not. It was his recollection that the council honored such requests for the reasons mentioned by Councilor Bettman. He found it troubling that Councilor Poling knew of the schedule for at least a month prior to his vacation, and in fact, in his role as council president, offered the body a motion in late October to schedule the item for action on this date. Had Councilor Poling worked with staff at that time, he was sure staff could have rescheduled the item. That Councilor Poling requested the delay the night before the meeting Councilor Kelly found “troubling, and just a wee bit manipulative.” He believed the council’s upcoming meeting schedule was already full and he was concerned about further delay. He said that he would not have spent as much time as he had on the amendments if he knew the item would be delayed. Councilor Papé disagreed with the Councilor Bettman’s recollection. He could recall only one instance where his request for postponement was not honored. He and others had asked for action to be postponed for reasons other than those mentioned by Councilor Bettman and those requests were honored. He objected to comments casting aspersions on Councilor Poling for his request because of his own, similar past requests. He asked the council to honor its traditions. Mr. Klein noted that given a motion was on the table, a councilor would have to move to postpone the motion to a date certain to honor Mr. Poling’s request. Councilor Papé, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to postpone the item. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 4:3; councilors Papé, Solomon, and Pryor voting yes. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt Motion A, which would add a new standard to all provisions in the land use code that allow lots to be divided such that a lot could not be created that would automatically qualify for an adjustment under Eugene Code (EC) 9.8030(21)(a). This adjustment is the adjustment that requires that 33 percent of the lot be either within the /WR setback area, or the area that extends landward beyond the setback. Councilor Papé asked if the amendment could prevent the subdivision of a small parcel. Natural Resources Planner Neil Björklund said that there may be certain circumstances where subdivision would be precluded, but he thought that would be unusual. One would have to have a combination of a large setback and a lot big enough to be partitioned. Without further analysis of examples, he was unable to provide a definitive answer; however, it was his sense that would be an unusual situation. Speaking to Councilor Papé’s question, Councilor Bettman said that one would still have the underlying provision allowing for adjustment if one could not avoid creating a lot with more than 33 percent in a conservation area. The amendment would apply only when one was platting a subdivision or planned unit development. The platter could not create lots intentionally to secure the adjustment. Councilor Papé asked if the adjustment was automatically granted or was a discretionary decision. Mr. Björklund indicated that one would have to apply for the adjustment through a Type II application. The motion passed, 4:3; councilors Papé, Solomon, and Pryor voting in opposition. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt Motion B, a motion that would amend two sections that address whether paved roads or pathways would be allowed MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 10 Regular Meeting