Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Clark asked for data on the number of housing units at maximum capacity that would not be built if the council adopted the lower building height. He said the possibility of creating one-way streets and diagonal thth parking between 18 and 19 avenues, and Agate and Alder streets, had been raised in earlier discussions of parking. He asked if any analysis of that had been done. Mr. Ruiz said he would check on the status. Mr. Poling asked for more information on the car-sharing concept, such as who provided the car and certified the car-sharing organization and what role the City had in the arrangement. Regarding the Jefferson-Westside Special Area Zone, he asked why there was a gap between the two areas in the zone. Ms. Harding replied that those were the two areas currently zoned for medium density residential; the majority of the area in the gap was zone R-1. The solutions were intended to address development problems within the R-2 zone. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Harding said that a 10,000 square-foot site qualified for a 90-foot building height would be comparable to two single-family lots combined. Mr. Zelenka asked staff to provide more information on the square footage of a block and examples of how building height limitations would be implemented, including allowing a bonus height of 90 feet. He like the concept of car-sharing, but was concerned that the concept was new. He did not want to trade off an untested approach with a permanent solution like reduction in parking spaces. He said the language specified that the car-sharing program had to be offered, but not that there had to be participants in it. He asked how the provisions related to requiring compliance with the minimum number of parking spaces would be enforced if car-sharing agreements ceased to function. Ms. Harding agreed that enforcement was the biggest challenge as the City’s enforcement activities were currently complaint-driven. She said the amendments package also included provisions for improving the City’s administration of off-site parking spaces. Ms. Ortiz concurred with Mr. Zelenka’s concerns about enforcing parking arrangements. She thanked ICS Task Team members for their work. Mr. Brown questioned why Section 12 of the proposed ordinance indicated that it would take effect pursuant to Section 32 of the Eugene Charter 2002 or on the date of its acknowledgement as provided in ORS 197.625, whichever was later. City Attorney Emily Jerome replied that the language was standard in most land use ordinances. The second clause indicated the provisions would not go into effect if the matter was appealed and would be delayed until the courts had determined the ordinance was enforceable. She said that avoided requiring compliance with a land use regulation that was remanded and went out of effect. She said the State had to acknowledge land use ordinances and that took 21 days; if there was no appeal the ordinance became effective on the thirtieth day according to the Charter. If there was an appeal, acknowledgement was withheld until the appeal was final. Mr. Brown preferred to have the second clause removed because it opened the opportunity for mischief. Ms. Jerome indicated she would provide a motion to accomplish that. Mr. Clark explained that he felt the proposed 90-foot building height was reasonable, but his question about the number of dwelling units eliminated by the reduction from 120 feet related to the broader community conversation about density. Mr. Zelenka expressed general concern about implementing the ICS recommendations when the City’s enforcement was complaint-driven. He questioned how anyone would know if a car-sharing program lapsed MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2009 Page 4 Work Session