Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pryor wanted more time to think about the issue. He could see the arguments for both sides. His inclination <br />was to vote no on the motion as a safeguard. <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 />Mr. Clark could also see the arguments for both sides but supported the staff recommendation for frontage. <br />Ms. Solomon asked that staff ensure that it provided maps for the discussion of commercial nonresidential lots. <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 />Mayor Piercy suggested the council consider a motion that stipulated that both options for nonresidential <br />properties were being moved along for further discussion, which did not limit councilors to a yes or no. Ms. <br />Taylor and Mr. Poling accepted Mayor Piercy's suggestion as a friendly amendment to the motion. <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 />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 />Mr. Clark adjourned the meeting at 1:15 p.m. <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />Beth Forrest <br />City Recorder <br />(Recorded by Kimberly Young) <br />MINUTES —City Council September 22, 2010 Page 5 <br />Work Session <br />