CC Minutes - 10/24/05 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Bettman indicated that she agreed with this if it was a commercial building next to a commercial building. She interpreted the amendment to mean that a buffer would no longer be required between a commercial and a non-commercial building. Mr. Nystrom replied that he would clarify that for her. Councilor Kelly thought the amendment to cul-de-sac requirements that would strike the limit on the length to a cul-de-sac was not a minor amendment and longer cul-de-sacs could negatively impact connectivity. Mr. Nystrom responded that some of the language was confusing to understand and the amendment also attempted to consolidate some of the discussion. He said any dead-end street would require a turnaround. He also pointed out that there were exceptions to longer street lengths that may connect in the future to an adjoining property but acted as a cul-de-sac in the meantime. He stated that the intent was to simplify the variables and clarify the intent of LUCU which was to provide more flexibility for alternatives to cul-de- sacs, not always requiring the “big bulb,” and that hammerheads were sometimes a more efficient use with less paving and a softer impact on neighborhoods. He understood that the shift in language could cause some uneasiness, but he believed that the amendment sought to fulfill the intent of the LUCU. Councilor Kelly reiterated that in terms of street connectivity there had been a second intent which was to avoid the creation of new long cul-de-sacs. He noted that (5) in that same subsection was carefully written to say “shall require” pedestrian/bicycle emergency connectivity and the new language changed ‘shall’ to ‘may.’ He said he would likely pull this amendment. Councilor Papé asked if there was a limit on large animals for a 20,000 square foot lot in 9.5250(l)(b). Mr. McKerrow replied that the code was very specific, requiring 10,000 square feet per horse and 5,000 square feet per goat as an example. Councilor Bettman echoed Councilor Kelly’s concerns regarding cul-de-sacs. 5. PUBLIC HEARING and POSSIBLE ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Multiple-Unit Housing Property Tax Exemptions and Amending Sections 2.945 and 2.947 of the Eugene Code City Manager Taylor stated that this was a “straight-forward ordinance” that asked to conform the City’s ordinance with recent revisions to State law and changing the sunset clause from 2006 to 2012. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, commented that the City Council was “tinkering” with the Multiple- Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE). He averred that people “all over town” were interested in these types of things. He suggested that the MUPTE be renamed in order to engage more public dialogue. He thought the acronym MUPTE sounded like something from the Muppets Show. He opined that MUPTE was contributing to the lack of money available for road repairs. He maintained that all of the property tax exemptions were going to give the City lots of big fancy buildings with expensive apartments and all of the day-to-day services would be neglected. He said a lot of people would like to have a greenway all along the Willamette River that was 200 to 300 feet wide. He recommended looking to Portland to see the effects of a MUPTE. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 10 Regular Session