Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner asked the consequence of implementing the motion on westside neighborhoods. Ms. <br />Bishow said that requiring a ten-foot setback for flag lots in R-2 would limit the design options of <br />those building in these areas. In some cases, the buildable area could be constrained by <br />something else, such as a tree or a wetland. On the positive side, if one was an adjacent <br />property owner, one benefitted from the new structure being pushed back at least ten feet, <br />although that space could be occupied by parking if developed with a single-family home. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman believed that the urban core neighborhoods were already comparatively dense and <br />she wanted to preserve the fabric of those neighborhoods. She said that existing housing stock <br />should be preserved, and the City should find another way to achieve density. Ms. Bettman <br />feared that the ordinance would have the greatest impact on established neighborhoods. She <br />wanted to mitigate the impact of infill while still allowing it and creating new opportunities for <br />density. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor indicated concurrence with the remarks of Ms. Bettman. She was opposed to reducing <br />the setback and wanted it to be at least 15 feet. She expressed concern about the privacy of <br />existing residents and the potential of stormwater runoff from new development affecting those <br />properties. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she had asked before how many lots would be affected. She questioned <br />whether the result would be the destruction of neighborhoods. She asked Ms. Bishow to <br />comment. Ms. Bishow reminded the council that the provision applied only to new flag lots. She <br />said that the City was still seeing instances of people who wanted to divide their property before <br />they developed it. The rate at which that occurred was hard to predict. The council's decision to <br />reduce the setback to ten feet in R-1 and R-2 lots would provide a greater opportunity for the use <br />of that land. Ms. Bishow pointed out that the developer would still be constrained by lot coverage <br />requirements. The location of existing utilities and large trees were also factors in the design and <br />location of a structure on a site. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that preservation of natural assets were important to many, and she <br />suggested that in many cases neighbors would prefer to see trees on a site retained rather than a <br />larger setback. Regarding the size of the setbacks in R-3 and R-4 zones, Ms. Nathanson said <br />that residents of those areas needed to be considered as well. They deserved a good quality of <br />life in their neighborhood in the same manner as those who lived in less dense zones. She <br />suggested that the council needed to be careful about how the City provided open space for <br />everyone. For example, did it provide everyone with a little bit of open space around individual <br />structures, or neighborhood parks and open space along creeks and in natural areas? <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that the desires of individual councilors needed to be weighed against the <br />desires of the community. He determined from Ms. Bishow that there was currently no adjustment <br />review process for interior lot lines. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that graduated setbacks gave the City a reasonable range of density. He was <br />willing to support a reduced setback in the R-3 and R-4 districts if the setback in the R-2 district <br />was ten feet. He suggested that the City could have zero lot lines in the R-1 and R-2 zones if had <br />design standards. He hoped that the City would move that direction in the future so that density <br />was "done right." Until that occurred or an adjustment review process was established, he <br />opposed the reduced setback in the R-2 zone. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 13, 2002 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />