Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Councilor Papé thought the amendment seemed reasonable, but he asked staff to respond to it. Mr. Nystrom explained that the intent was to make it clear that the ‘require’ statement had limitations, mostly to do with exactions and findings for making those exactions, and by having strong language it could read in a way that seemed to preempt the provisions. He said it was more for the reader than for anything else, because the code still had to do with “Dolan” issues and, legally speaking, the code still had to deal with those issues regardless of whether the language said ‘may’ or ‘shall.’ Roll call vote; the motion to amend Staff Recommended Motion (D) passed unanimously, 8:0. Roll call vote; the amended Staff Recommended Motion (D) passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the motion with Staff Recommended Motion (E) from page 237 of the Agenda Item Summary. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved that Council Bill 4910, Section 2, be amended to remove any proposed revisions to the current code entry for Recreational Vehicles and Heavy Truck, Sales/Rental/Service on EC Table 9.2160. Councilor Bettman expressed concern that the proposed land use code amendment, without her amendment, would permit recreational vehicle and heavy truck sales, rental, and service businesses to develop in all C-2, Commercial areas including those in the downtown area and other areas she felt would be inappropriate for that use. She noted that such a business could still apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to locate in an area that was zoned C-2 and this would allow the public to weigh in on it. Councilor Kelly commented that it was a policy issue, though a relatively minor one. He also thought it had potential to increase property value on some parcels and, as such, should be deferred until the City Council discussion on the Ballot Measure 37 “givings” tax. He indicated his support for the amendment. Councilor Pryor asked to what degree recreational vehicle and heavy truck sales, rental, and service facilities differentiated from motor vehicle sales, rental, and service facilities. He wondered if it had to do with the size of the facility or its impact on the land. Mr. Nystrom replied that he could not speak to the origin of how the two uses were separated initially as it happened “many years ago in the code.” He assumed that it had to do with the size of the vehicles and the larger visual impacts they had. He said the issue staff raised was that they were seen infrequently and tended to be in locations that had not had the kinds of concerns and issues that were raised by Councilor Bettman. He stated that they were typically in areas that were a little more impacted with other commercial uses and auto-related uses. He said a CUP typically addressed compatibility and impact issues and the reality had been that the sites that had been brought forward did not have those kinds of concerns. He felt there had not been a lot of value gained in the larger process. Councilor Pryor asked if Mr. Nystrom could think of any inherent reason why a recreational vehicle lot would be significantly different from a car lot aside from the size of the vehicle. Mr. Nystrom replied that he could not. Councilor Pryor asked if the lots themselves were considerably larger than car lots. Mr. Nystrom responded that this was not typically the case. Councilor Solomon favored the staff-recommended motion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 6 Regular Session