Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

collector streets. She said after the council meeting in 2006, staff had done research and looked at different access management codes and policies across the nation. They had put together a list of strategies they felt were appropriate for the Eugene area. She related that they took that list to a department advisory committee. She said there were two primary strategies: a reduction in the number of conflict points on arterial and collector streets and to ensure the access points were spaced far enough apart that it did not interfere with traffic flow. She explained that the Planning Commission had reviewed the policies and weighed in on them and then they had developed the draft code. She noted that they also met with several different stakeholder groups, including the realtors and the Homebuilders Association. She said they had sent notice to a little over 10,000 property owners on the arterial and collector streets to make them aware of the public hearing on this item, held on August 25 with the Planning Commission. She stated that the new code would not make changes on any existing properties; the code would only be implemented when a building permit was applied for. They had received approximately 200 calls regarding this notice and staff had responded to them. She said in some cases, the input they received caused them to reconsider some of the ordinance and make changes. Mayor Piercy thanked Ms. Keppler and staff for their work. Ms. Solomon found the explanation to be very helpful. She asked for the member list of the department advisory committee. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Ms. Keppler stated that staff had put together a citizen involvement plan, which they had presented to the Planning Commission and to which the commission had provided input. She said the advisory committee had met four or five times during the process and they had met with interested parties. Ms. Solomon understood from the AIS that staff had provided examples to the Planning Commission of how the proposed amendments would apply to properties. She said it would be helpful to her to see those examples. Ms. Keppler explained that they had put a property on the board and had walked through the code as it applied to the property so that the commissioners could see how it would be impacted by the proposed code amendments. She thought they could do the same exercise for the council prior to the public hearing. Ms. Solomon ascertained that her colleagues were interested in a visual example. She suggested that staff bring three examples. Mr. Zelenka wanted to emphasize that seeing a visual example of how it would work would benefit the conversation. He also wanted to underscore that they had been working on this for three years. He acknowledged that it was a large body of work and thanked staff “for slogging through this.” Ms. Keppler related that one thing they observed was that there were only a few properties that would experience a real impact. She cited one property, as an example, that was a commercial site and the changes in the code would change the development proposal so that the driveway would be moved from where the owner originally intended to place it. C. WORK SESSION: Auditor Report on Taser Case Involving Asian Student MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 8, 2010 Page 6 Work Session