CC Minutes - 11/28/05 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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. Councilor Papé said while he appreciated Councilor Bettman’s concerns, he thought the council needed to trust staff and delegate. He indicated he would oppose the motion. Roll call vote; the motion to amend failed, 5:3; councilors Bettman, Taylor, and Kelly voting in favor. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that Council Bill 4910, Section 14, be amended to remove any proposed revisions to the current code entry for subsection (6) of EC 9.2761. Councilor Bettman explained that this motion accompanied the first amendment she proposed and the council had passed. Mr. Nystrom concurred. He said it was a companion piece to this and in essence was a narrative explaining the same intent. Roll call vote; the motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Taylor moved that Council Bill 4910, Section 15, be amended to remove any proposed revisions to subsection (1) “Purpose of EC 9.2775.” The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Bettman said she would vote to oppose the motion. She thought the process had been constrained by the number of code revisions the council had to review and the time allotted to review them. She felt there was a trend toward decreasing densities in wealthier neighborhoods, allowing a code that made it easier to have larger lot sizes and less density in new development. She asserted that this differed from what the City was doing in existing neighborhoods, which was cramming in infill without design standards. She opined that the direction the code changes were headed in was toward a fundamental inequity. Councilor Bettman also requested that fewer code amendments be submitted at a time for council review. She felt most of the councilors did not even know what was in the code amendments and the impact they would have on the ground and the neighborhoods in their wards. She asked that the next batch of code amendments contain less land use amendments to consider. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 8 Regular Session