Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

In response to a question from Councilor Solomon, Mr. Nystrom said land zoned C-3 was typically commercial land in the downtown area and auto-related uses were discouraged in general in that area. Councilor Bettman averred that larger vehicles had an impact on the size and nature of the site and the adjacent transportation infrastructure. She felt this use should be allowed by CUP only in land that was zoned C-2. Roll call vote; the vote to amend was a 4:4 tie; councilors Bettman, Ortiz, Kelly and Taylor voting in favor and councilors Poling, Solomon, Papé, and Pryor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in support of the amendment and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that Council Bill 4910, Section 14, be amended to delete proposed subsection (5)(d) from EC 9.2761. Councilor Bettman opposed the subsection because she felt ‘natural resources’ was not defined in the language. She thought it would provide exceptions to maximum lot size on “very general, broad, and un- defined terms.” In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Mr. Nystrom stated that there were references within the criteria of approval for many of the land use applications that would be triggering this issue. He said there were ways to look at linking them. He commented that it became a “word smithing” challenge to corral what natural area issues would be. He acknowledged that to Councilor Bettman it seemed too broad. He said there was language in the code now through the land use applications that one could try to link to and he was uncertain if there was a simple amendment that would satisfy all of the council, as the language was a little different in each application as well. Councilor Kelly supported the amendment in order to add the item to the second round of land use code amendments for further discussion. Councilor Taylor asked if the natural resources could be trees. Mr. Nystrom replied that it was one of the areas that could be identified in the land use criteria. He observed that one of the concerns, if one looked at it from a “Goal 5 point-of-view,” is that it would not necessarily be inclusive enough. He said, however, that if one looked at the criteria for the underlying land use applications, it would include things like trees and some other key vegetation. Councilor Bettman opined that the language was too general. She was concerned that a developer could use such general language to gain exemptions to the maximum lot size based on a natural resource, such as a tree, and then build a house and cut down the tree. She felt there was no enforcement. She averred it was vague and unless the phrasing was wordsmithed it was a good discussion to have in the second phase. She also thought there were issues of the Goal 5 natural resources and there were provisions for adjusting setbacks according to the natural resources that were being protected. In response to question from Councilor Papé, Mr. Nystrom stated that in larger scale projects, especially a PUD, there were tools that allowed planners to look at the “balancing act” more holistically. He said it was the smaller scale projects that had less flexibility and this language sought to provide them with a little more flexibility. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 7 Regular Session