Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Ortiz agreed it was a difficult issue to resolve and it was about balancing the interests of both sides. <br />She would support the recommendation to require the developer and the neighborhood to continue working <br />together to find a solution. <br />Mayor Piercy stated it was a classic example of trying to live more densely, but that should not mean having <br />to choose between greater density and neighborhood character. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka commended the developer’s willingness to discuss neighborhood concerns. He said this issue <br />could be thought of in two stages: short-term issues with the compatibility of this project and long-term <br />issues related to zoning along the south edge of the University of Oregon campus. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asserted that the City’s policies should be designed to be clear and dependable for those who were <br />subject to them and he hoped to see greater clarity about the intent and policies so the council did not need to <br />become involved in mitigating this type of conflict. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to direct staff to <br />work with residents toward compatibility solutions through the ICS process. In addition, <br />direct staff to contact the developer and residents immediately and continue to work toward <br />mutually beneficial solutions. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to amend the motion by including the fol- <br />lowing language: to direct the City Manager to pursue through the Minor Code Amend- <br />ment Process code amendments that would mitigate the following impacts from incompati- <br />ble infill: <br /> <br />? <br /> Excessive building height in R-3 and R-4 zones that are proximal to R-1 zones, <br />? <br /> Excessive demand for on-street parking by multi-family development in R-3 <br />and R-4 zones with a substantial number of dwelling units that have five or <br />more bedrooms, <br />? <br /> Include a definition in the code’s glossary for “Residential Character” to mean <br />that the use, zoning or development of land or structure that is residential vs. <br />non-residential, as well as the particular nature and character of the current or <br />potential residential use, zoning or development. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman spoke in support of her motion. She said people were not opposed to all density; they were <br />opposed to incompatible density. She said the issues identified were relevant to neighborhoods across the <br />City. <br /> <br />Ms. Harding noted that excessive on-street parking demand was currently being addressed in the MiCAP <br />process. Regarding excessive building height, she said the current code offered protection by limiting height <br />of development in R-3 and R-4 to 30 feet if it was within 50 feet of an R-1 zone. She was concerned about <br />how Ms. Bettman’s amendment would affect the rest of R-4 and R-3 zones and developers’ ability to attain <br />the higher densities the City sought. She felt the MiCAP process would be slowed by adding items that <br />would require deeper analysis. She was not certain that adding the definition would address the problem <br />when a development went directly to a building permit. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka offered friendly amendments to change the reference in the second bulleted <br />item from five or more bedrooms to three or more bedrooms and to add the following <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />