CC Minutes - 11/13/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly noted that the testimony offered to the council by Gordon Anslow used a 10,000 square- foot lot and asked if that was an established lot size in R-1 neighborhoods. He added that would reduce design options much less than the design options provided by staff. Ms. Bishow did not know. She noted that the minimum area for a flag lot was 6,000 square feet. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Nathanson that everyone had the right to live in an attractive place, but that was not what society was like. She wanted to protect residents who choose to live in small houses on large lots. She said that such changes had the potential to change the character of a neighborhood over time. She preferred to see the setback increased to 15 feet if there was to be flag lots at all. She suggested that if there were trees that were threatened, the setback could be adjusted. Ms. Bettman said the recommendation for a reduced setback was a rollback from the policy decision the council made in its deliberations on the Land Use Code Update. She did not find Ms. Nathanson's comments about potentially greater setbacks in the more dense zones to be germane to the motion. Ms. Bettman said that in her neighborhood, she had seen several situations where citizens objected to the infill development that was occurring next door. In one case, the resident felt that she had to move because the new development was so close to her bedroom window. She did not want to duplicate the problems that the City was experiencing in the west university neighborhood, where people did not want to own homes and invest in the neighborhood. She said if the City did not protect its urban core neighborhoods, it would cost more in future years to correct the blight that resulted. She thought the reduced setback would have a drastic impact on those affected. Mr. Rayor pointed out that the majority of residents living in R-1 zones, particularly in the flat areas of town, had five-foot setbacks and those setbacks were generally accepted. He said that the land in question was valuable to its owners and valuable to the community because of its infill potential. He did not want to lose land and impel the city to expand onto farmland. The amendment to the motion failed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. The main motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to direct staff to amend Ordinance 3, Section 2, to require a five-foot interior yard setback for flag and alley lots on land zoned R-2, R-3, or R-4. Mr. Rayor supported the motion because he believed it created some flexibility for site development. Ms. Bettman opposed the motion because she believed it opened the door to greater density in the already dense urban core without accompanying design standards. That will mean people would be uncertain about the future of their neighborhood and they would hesitate to remodel, and perhaps move away, leading to the residential turnover the City experienced in the west university area. She said that was not good for the environment, and was a way for density to fail. She said that lowering the standards would result in a proliferation of flag and alley lots, leading to removal of the tree canopy and the urban gardens that exist in the urban core neighborhoods. She said that without design standards, densification will result in blighted core neighborhoods over time. Ms. Bettman said there were other ways to densify, and she regretted that those other MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 13, 2002 Page 5 Work Session