Laserfiche WebLink
they did not meet the new standards. Ms. Bishow said that in most cases, the lots in question were <br />platted many years ago. The most immediate hardship was on the property owner who bought a <br />flag lot in the 1970s and were now coming in with a building application. She believed that other <br />property owners did not submit plans because they became aware of the regulations and turned to, <br />for example, the Lane County Homebuilders for assistance in getting the code changed. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman favored Option 1 because she wanted the commission to look at the standards again <br />and because she thought it fair to grandfather those lots created before the new code was adopted. <br />She said that while a five-feet setback was not enough, a fifteen-foot setback seemed to be too <br />much. She said the City had an overlap between regular lots with a five-foot setback from the <br />interior lot line. She had received a call from a senior citizen living next to a lot where an "eight- <br />pack" was being constructed, and after living in her house for more than 30 years was moving <br />because the new structure was less than ten feet from her bedroom window and she could not <br />sleep because of the noise. Ms. Bettman urged the commission to develop a solution with some <br />flexibility. She said she would be more inclined to remove the height restriction in a situation <br />where there was a need for a deeper setback. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner thought the motion seemed equitable given that the flag lots in question were often <br />platted long ago, and because the Planning Commission would discuss the standards at a later time. <br /> He said he had felt some affinity for Option 3, Eliminate special setback and height standards for <br />flag lots, saying that if one increased the setback, he questioned the need for such a restrictive <br />height limitation. The combination seemed based in what he termed "fear of density." He thought <br />that City could densify well, pointing out that both neighborhoods and flag lots vary. He hoped <br />the commission believed it had broad direction to look at all the elements of the issue. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor had supported Option 2, suggesting that it was a hardship if nearby development ruined <br />one's backyard. She said that people bought their houses considering the neighborhood they were <br />in and what they saw from their windows. However, she would support Option 1. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson supported Option 1 for the reasons stated by other councilors. She asked if the <br />commission had viewed pictures of developed and undeveloped flag lots. Ms. Childs said there <br />may have been site plans but no photos. Ms. Nathanson recommended that staff take a few sample <br />photos to aid in the commission and council's understanding. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor determined from Ms. Bishow that the solar ordinance and maximum lot coverage <br />standards would apply to flag lots, and suggested those regulations were a form of protection for <br />the neighbors of such lots. He further determined that flag lots were permitted on commercial and <br />industrial zoned lands and in the R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones. Ms. Bishow said that flag lots <br />were subject to the special standards regarding setbacks and height limitations only in the R-1 <br />zone. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested the commission consider a Portland requirement for general lot development <br />that stipulated that one could only build within the setback to an adjacent property if one did not, <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 13 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />