Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Councilor Brown agreed there were other options for achieving 100 points, but pointed out the developers <br />did not choose them and the project’s points were below the minimum required. He questioned why <br />standards were established if they were relaxed in certain situations. He cautioned against making <br />exceptions for technicalities. He suggested delaying a vote and allowing the developers to resubmit their <br />application once they were able to achieve 100 points. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka agreed with Councilor Brown that the developers could resubmit their application when it <br />met the requirements. He said there was no point in having standards if they were not enforced. <br /> <br />The motion to amend passed, 4:3; Councilor Brown, Councilor Zelenka and <br />Councilor Ortiz voting no. <br /> <br />The amended motion passed, 4:3; Councilor Brown, Councilor Zelenka and <br />Councilor Ortiz voting no. <br /> <br />4. ACTION: <br /> Adoption of an Ordinance Concerning Time Extensions for Approved Developments; and <br />Providing an Effective Date (City File CA 09-5). <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt Council Bill <br />#5011 concerning time extensions for approved developments. <br /> <br />Mr. Ruiz provided a brief overview of the item. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka asked the rationale for extending the time for three years instead of two. <br /> <br />Gabe Flock, Planning and Development Department, explained that the ordinance was originally drafted to <br />allow a two-year time extension based on state legislation. The Planning Commission, after receiving <br />testimony on the item, chose to extend the time extension for approved land use applications to three years. <br />He said a similar ordinance in Portland granted a three and one-half-year extension and ordinances in other <br />jurisdictions made permanent changes to their processing criteria that went beyond what staff considered the <br />scope of the council’s direction. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Brown, moved to amend the ordinance <br />to provide a two-year extension. <br /> <br />Councilor Ortiz stated she could not support the amendment as she felt the three-year period was <br />appropriate. She asked how many applications would be affected by the ordinance and whether any had <br />expired to-date. Mr. Flock replied that there were 130 land use approvals that would be granted the <br />extension. There had been a handful of applications that expired over the last year for a variety of reasons <br />and staff was working with those applicants to consider the options available to them. <br /> <br />The motion to amend failed 5:2; Councilor Zelenka and Councilor Brown voting <br />yes. The main motion passed, 6:1; Councilor Brown voting no. <br /> <br />5. ACTION: <br /> Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan <br />Land Use diagram; Amending the Willakenzie Area Plan Pursuant to Section 9.7750(4) of the <br />Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date; <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2009 Page 6 <br />