Laserfiche WebLink
Councilor Zelenka agreed with Councilor Brown that the developers could resubmit their application <br />when it met the requirements. He said there was no point in having standards if they were not enforced. <br />The motion to amend passed, 4:3; Councilor Brown, Councilor Zelenka and <br />Councilor Ortiz voting no. <br />The amended motion passed, 4:3; Councilor Brown, Councilor Zelenka and <br />Councilor Ortiz voting no. <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)0 <br />Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt Council Bill <br />#5011 concerning time extensions for approved developments. <br />Mr. Ruiz provided a brief overview of the item. <br />Councilor Zelenka asked the rationale for extending the time for three years instead of two. <br />Gabe Flock, Planning and Development Department, explained that the ordinance was originally drafted <br />to 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 <br />years. He said a similar ordinance in Portland granted a three and one-half-year extension and ordinances <br />in other jurisdictions made permanent changes to their processing criteria that went beyond what staff <br />considered the scope of the council's direction. <br />Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Brown, moved to amend the ordinance <br />to provide a two -year extension. <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 />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 />5. ACTION: <br />Adoption of an ordinance Amending the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General <br />Plan Land Use diagram; Amending the Willakenzie Area Plan Pursuant to Section 9.7750(4) <br />of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a Severability Clauses and Providing an Effective Date; <br />Returning the "River Ridge" Site to the Low Density Residential Designation (River Ridge, <br />Eugene File MA 09.3 and Lane County File PA09- 5465). <br />Mayor Piercy conveyed a request from Councilor Taylor to postpone action on the item. <br />Councilor Pryor remarked that he was supportive of a request to delay when it was reasonable to do so, <br />but felt the first option should be for a councilor to participate by telephone instead of asking for a delay <br />MINUTES Eugene City Council November 9, 2009 Page 6 <br />