Agenda Packet 11-25-19 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES – Eugene City Council October 23, 2019 Page 2 Work Session standards for the AG, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and S-E zones that apply only to flag lots, making ADUs on flag lots in those zones subject to the same lot standards that apply on regular (non-flag lot) lots in the same zone. o Councilor Yeh – said she thought it was unreasonable to treat flag lots as if they werefundamentally different from another type of lot. o Councilor Semple – said she thought flag lots were fundamentally different because theywere landlocked and wanted to protect green space and privacy. o Councilor Zelenka – asked for clarification about lot size minimums for ADUs built on flaglots; asked whether the Land Use Board of Appeals challenge covered issues pertaining toflag lots; asked how many lots there were that met the minimum and what was challengedrelated to flag lots in the LUBA remand; said he doubted the motion would accomplish much. o Councilor Syrett – said she thought owners of flag lots should not be more restricted indeveloping their land than owners of lots with different shapes; shared her intent tosupport the motion. o Councilor Taylor – said she preferred to postpone the entire conversation about ADUs;supported reviewing each proposed change individually. o Councilor Clark – said his intention in proposing the R-1 code amendments in 2014 was toprotect the rights of property owners and the quality of life in R-1, rather than to limit ADUsor the ability of land owners. o Councilor Pryor – said he thought the R-1 code amendments were designed to limit owners’ability to develop their land; wanted to continue to uplift livability while accommodating agrowing population in accordance with Senate Bill 100. o Mayor Vinis – noted the Climate Recovery Ordinance called on council to find ways to liveand grow within the urban growth boundary, which would require more people to live inthe city’s neighborhoods; said she thought flag lots were an opportunity to add infill. o Councilor Taylor – said she felt changing zoning was dishonest to current property owners. VOTE: FAILED 3:4, Councilors Clark, Taylor, Semple and Zelenka opposed. MOTION: Councilor Yeh, seconded by Councilor Syrett, moved to direct the City Manager to revise the draft ordinance to allow ADUs on alley-access lots in the R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones, subject to the same ADU standards that apply on regular(street access) lots in the same zone. o Councilor Clark – said he wanted a plan to catch up on the list of unimproved roads in needof repair; noted the motion, if passed, would result in increased wear on alleys. o Councilor Semple – asked whose responsibility it was to maintain the alleys; expressedconcern about access to the home for people in wheelchairs when alleys were unpaved. o Councilor Zelenka – said ADUs aren’t the panacea for the affordable housing crisis, but thedetails for how they would be built would impact neighbors; said he thought the impact ofHB 2001 in the university area would be dramatically different than for otherneighborhoods; voiced concern about marginal housing being razed and multiplexes beingbuilt on the same land; said he did not intend to support the motion. o Councilor Taylor – said she thought the legislation would impact the whole city—not justthe university neighborhood—and result in higher housing prices for renters and buyers. o Councilor Syrett – noted that additional cars being driven on the alleys would only occur ifthe land owner provided an on-site parking spot for the ADU; expressed concern that thework session would result in the City being in violation of HB2001; said she wasdiscouraged by the tenor of the conversation. November 25, 2019, Meeting - Item 2A