CC Minutes - 10/12/09 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

sage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, retention by the Mayor for more than ten days, or re-adoption over a mayoral veto by two-thirds of all members of the City Council.” Councilor Clark asked if this amendment would be characterized as an emergency clause. Ms. Jerome confirmed this. She stated that it would require a council majority vote of six to pass. Councilor Clark ascertained from Ms. Jerome that if the council did nothing, the parking ordinance would come back automatically as a part of the ICS work that would be coming before the council. Councilor Zelenka encouraged his colleagues to vote for the amendment. He averred that if it did not go into effect immediately, it would leave the neighborhood unprotected while they were working out the details regarding building heights. Councilor Ortiz asked Ms. Jerome to clarify the motion before the council. Ms. Jerome explained that the motion only affected the height provisions. She stated that the ordinance had findings that addressed the issues that had been raised in the appeal that had gone before the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). She said the amended motion would make it go into effect immediately and, without the amendment, the provision would only go into effect after another appeal had occurred, should there be one. Councilor Ortiz had thought that what was coming before the council was a height limit that had been negotiated between the South University Neighborhood and the Homebuilders Association. Ms. Jerome clarified that this was not part of the motion; what Councilor Ortiz referred to was part of what was forthcoming from the ICS Committee. She said the expectation would be that the ICS proposal, if passed by the council, would take the place of the provisions that were before them at the present meeting. Councilor Ortiz asked Councilor Zelenka to explain “what the hurry” was. Councilor Zelenka responded that his concern was that if the ordinance was adopted without his amendment, it could take months for the height limit to go into effect. He said his amendment would provide the neighborhood the protection he believed they were seeking until the ICS ordinance came before the council. When that ordinance passed, it would become the language that everyone agreed to in the ICS process. He believed that without the amended language, there could be “zero protections” for the neighborhood should someone want to develop a tall building there. Councilor Pryor understood that the limits would be adopted either way. He surmised that the question before the council was whether they wanted to pursue the standard process for adoption or did they want to declare an emergency and have it in effect in anticipation that there might be an appeal. He asked staff if there was any indication that anyone was inclined to file an appeal. Senior Planner Alissa Hansen responded that the testimony given at the public hearing had been pretty divided, but most of it had centered on the parking issue. Councilor Pryor had not heard anyone indicating intent to appeal. He asked how long the standard adoption would take and what would be in effect. Ms. Jerome wished to clarify that the only people who could appeal the issue were those who had participated in the original LUBA appeal. She said as the ordinance was currently drafted, the minor code amendment provisions would not go back into place until they were acknowledged. She explained that if no one appealed, it would take 30 days according to charter, but if it was appealed it would not go into effect until they received a ruling from the appellate body. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Pryor, Ms. Jerome stated that what would be in effect during the appeal period would be current code. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2009 Page 6 Regular Meeting