Laserfiche WebLink
cases, those lots were 20,000 to 40,000 square feet. The motion would prohibit infill there. Mr. <br />Meisner said that if the City restricted any innovative form of development to new development, it <br />would lose an opportunity. He pointed out that there was not a lot of vacant land in the city. <br />Passage of the motion would mean the City would not achieve its density goals using infill <br />development, and it would lead to fast track demands to increasing the urban growth boundary. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey agreed with Mr. Meisner. He said that saying no means that the City quit too soon. <br />He said that he might be willing to look at further adjustments, but if required to vote he would <br />not support the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart reiterated the need to maintain flexibility while addressing the concerns raised by Ms. <br />Taylor. He said he had seen examples of small cottage structures in the back of larger houses <br />with bicycle and pedestrian access only, and expressed interest in following up on a similar <br />concept for Eugene. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that in the same way she was concerned about blanket minimum lot sizes, <br />she was also concerned about discrepancies in minimum lot sizes for single-family residential <br />and flag lots. She asked staff to examine the minimum lot size for flag lots with the minimum lot <br />size for R-1 and nodal development, and determine if the City was establishing two thresholds. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that densifying does not mean that the City needed to divide lots in mature <br />neighborhoods. She said she had some good ideas about ways to densify those neighborhoods <br />without subdividing every lot to create a diversity of housing types. She suggested that the <br />council table the motion until after a discussion on those ideas. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Pap~, to table the motion. The motion <br /> passed, 5:3; Mr. Rayor, Mr. Fart, Ms. Nathanson voting no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Farr, to amend the code to clarify the <br /> difference between "dwelling, duplex," and "dwelling, secondary." The <br /> motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Farr, to change the code to clarify that <br /> a residential lot with a single-family dwelling and a secondary dwelling is only <br /> required to have a total of two off-street parking spaces on the property. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Bishow clarified that the intent of the motion <br />was to require at least two off-street parking spaces for the development site. <br /> <br />Responding to a suggestion from Mr. Meisner that the number of spaces be changed to one, Ms. <br />Bettman pointed out that in most single-family housing situations there were two parking spaces: <br />the garage and the parking space. Mr. Meisner said that most developers were going to provide <br />two, but requiring two as a minimum seemed excessive. Ms. Bettman and Mr. Fart agreed to <br />change the motion to indicate one space rather than two. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Bishow said that there was no maximum size <br />requirement for the stall size but there was a minimum dimension. If the amended motion were <br />approved, single-family detached dwellings would be required to have one off-street parking <br />space. If another unit was added, the property owner could choose to, but would not be required <br />to, add a second space. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2000 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />