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

Home Browse Search

alleged that the items were presented to the Planning Commission on a consent calendar, the commissioners pulled them from the consent calendar, and then amendments were brought to a public hearing. He claimed there had never been a general explanation of where these items came from. He said in some cases explanations of where these code amendments came from did not even contain complete sentences. He related that the Friends of Eugene asked repeatedly for a comprehensive list so that they could work on them and get more people involved in the process. He stated that he was not provided with a list and was told that a list could not be made until the hearing before the Planning Commission. He asserted that staff had a list and was “doling them out 10 or 12 at a time.” Mr. Matthews requested that the record remain open for seven days. In closing, Mr. Matthews averred that “probably half of these items” would allow development or expansion that would not have otherwise been allowed. He was uncertain how this would interface with Ballot Measure 37, but he called the statement that only three of them would influence property values “specious.” He found the findings for the package of 81 code amendments “equally specious.” He asserted that the amendments were a “solipsistic package of backroom dealing.” Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called for councilor comments and questions. Councilor Kelly echoed Councilor Bettman’s request for feedback to her questions at the present meeting. He said the majority of the amendments “felt” minor and he was comfortable passing nearly all of them. He expressed concern that the amendment to 9.121(1), to allow recreational vehicle sales in areas zoned C-2, would fall under the category of amendments that could potentially increase property values. Councilor Kelly also took issue with the amendment to 9.2173(10)(c), which changed the code to allow walls with loading docks to be excluded from the requirement to have windows. He felt it was too broadly written and could allow a 100 foot long wall with a small loading dock to be built without windows. Councilor Kelly echoed Councilor Bettman’s concerns with the proposed amendment to 9.2761(6). He thought because the language was changed from ‘shall’ to ‘may,’ a four-plex lot that was larger than the minimum lot size could be developed with a single-family house on it. Mr. Nystrom affirmed this and said the amendment needed additional work. Councilor Kelly also agreed with Councilor Bettman that the amendment to 9.2761(6) needed some way of ensuring that the exception to the R-1 maximum lot standard to protect natural resources would continue to protect those natural resources through subsequent ownership. Councilor Papé, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to keep the record open for seven days. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman recalled that when the initiative to look at minor code amendments had originally been taken, the council was assured that outreach to the community and groups that represented the public would be asked to provide input. She said to her knowledge this never occurred. She averred that the list of amendments “represented an industry wish list” and many of them rolled back provisions. She stressed that when looking at major land use amendments, the public process should be emphasized. She referred to her list of questions and asked Mr. Nystrom for his responses. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 6 Regular Session