My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2011
>
CC Agenda - 01/11/11 Meeting
>
Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/7/2011 2:26:06 PM
Creation date
1/7/2011 1:23:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/11/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Schoening said there was no maximum assessed frontage for <br />residential properties. Ms. Solomon did not support the motion. She had reviewed a map of Bethel Drive and found <br />that there were many large lots that drew no or little traffic and had little impact on the use of the road, while other, <br />smaller lots attracted a lot of traffic. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor wanted more time to think about the issue. He could see the arguments for both sides. His inclination was <br />to vote no on the motion as a safeguard. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling pointed out the council’s vote on the motion did not represent a final decision. He could see arguments <br />for both sides and was willing to support Ms. Taylor’s motion to start the public process. He could still change his <br />mind after hearing from the public. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark could also see the arguments for both sides but supported the staff recommendation for frontage. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon asked that staff ensure that it provided maps for the discussion of commercial nonresidential lots. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor suggested the council could look maps of other neighborhoods and come to another conclusion. She <br />pointed out that the council’s actions would be in place for some time to come. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy suggested the council consider a motion that stipulated that both options for nonresidential properties <br />were being moved along for further discussion, which did not limit councilors to a yes or no. Ms. Taylor and Mr. <br />Poling accepted Mayor Piercy’s suggestion as a friendly amendment to the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to forward both the frontage and area options for non- <br />residential properties for further discussion. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy reported she had just returned from a meeting of the Oregon Transportation Commission, which <br />discussed the composition of the Lane County Area Commission on Transportation, in particular the number of <br />citizen representatives and who they were appointed by. She said the commission returned the questions for <br />resolution to Lane County. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark adjourned the meeting at 1:15 p.m. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br /> <br />Beth Forrest <br />City Recorder <br /> <br />(Recorded by Kimberly Young) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—City Council September 22, 2010 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.