Laserfiche WebLink
specific amendments recommended by the Planning Commission, and then direct the commission <br />to review the trigger as part of the spring amendments package. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thought the protection built in for the developer was the 50,000 square foot <br />minimum. Even if the trigger was two buildings, the two buildings could be 25,000 square feet <br />each and still would not trigger the standards. She thought such a development would still be a <br />significantly sized development. <br /> <br /> The amended motion failed, 4:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor <br /> voting yes. <br /> <br /> The main motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting <br /> <br /> no. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Childs regarding whether the council wanted the commission <br />to reconsider the trigger, Mayor Torrey said no, not based on the vote. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor moved to direct the City Manager to prepare an ordinance to <br /> amend Section 9.2775(5)(b) by addressing residential flag lot standards, <br /> Option 2. The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> prepare an ordinance to amend Section 9.2775(5)(b) addressing residential <br /> flag lot standards, Option 1. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he was philosophically opposed to flag lots because of his belief that the residents <br />living on such lots feel disconnected from neighborhoods because of a lack of street connection. <br />However, he acknowledged that was not a land use issue. Mr. Kelly had initially supported the <br />standards as a way to address the impact of such developments on surrounding dwellings, but he <br />found the testimony submitted, particularly by Pete Forsman, to be convincing. He supported <br />Option 1 because it addressed the immediate concerns raised by residents and allowed the Planning <br />Commission to explore the issue in more depth. He believed the issue was bigger than flag lots, <br />and touched on how the City did infill development and balanced density and livability. He hoped <br />there was a way for the commission to look at neighboring lot impacts in general, and determine <br />how to achieve goal of minimizing the impact while allowing the infill. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said the existing flag lots were platted on the basis of the existing setbacks in the code, <br />and the standards would seriously constrain how such lots could be developed. He agreed that the <br />lots would affect existing neighbors, but the neighbors knew the lots were there. He supported the <br />motion as supportive of infill. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Bishow that approximately 15-20 applications for flag lot <br />development had been turned away at the Permit and Information Center since August 1 because <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 12 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />