CC Minutes - 09/18/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

tree canopy and gardening opportunities, and the loss of single-family housing. She preferred other density strategies, including cottage zoning and asset mapping. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Bettman. However, he said he did not regard large lot single-family homes as a "sacred cow." At the same time, he loved the community's old neighborhoods. He intended to vote against the motion because it was not in context with other council decisions. He wanted a tradeoffs and consequences discussion. Mr. Meisner wanted to see changes in the assessment policies related to alley improvements to address the size of the frontage of a developing property. He was not happy with alley lot development but disliked the motion as a permanent prohibition, and looked forward to consideration of other motions that help the community accomplish its density goals in the best way for neighborhoods. Mr. Farr expressed interest in hearing some of Ms. Bettman's ideas. He hoped the motion was defeated and the issues involved examined again after the council looked at other development types that the City could use creatively to maintain its housing stock. The motion failed on a tie vote, 4:4; Mr. Farr, Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, and Mr. Pap8 voting no, and Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Rayor, and Ms. Taylor voting yes. Mayor Torrey broke the tie by voting in opposition to the motion for a 5:4 vote. Ms. Bishow discussed the implications of eliminating flag lots, saying that about 20 percent of new lots currently being created through the partition process were flag lots. In new subdivisions, the figure was closer to less than ten percent. If flag lots were eliminated in subdivisions, it might not eliminate density as a large lot could likely be developed as a duplex or triplex. In a partition, the action would have a greater impact on the City's density objectives. Ms. Bishow sought the council's advice on whether staff should draft standards regarding compatibility. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Bishow agreed that it was unlikely that triplexes or duplexes in such situations would be owner-occupied. She said that it was difficult to know how the market would respond. She noted that she recently signed a final plat for a 13-1ot subdivision that would have been 11 lots in size if flag lots were not permitted. Staff also encountered lots that were too narrow to partition as two standard lots with the required street frontage, and in such cases the developer generally wanted to create a lot flag in the rear. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to direct the City Manager to amend the code to prohibit flag lots in residentially zoned areas. Ms. Taylor did not object to flag lots for new development but objected to them in existing neighborhoods. She thought that the City generally wanted to avoid curb cuts and advocated for alley access to new housing. Ms. Taylor wanted to eliminate the curb cuts necessitated by such flag lots, saying they were not safe for children or attractive. Ms. Bishow suggested that Ms. Taylor consider prohibiting flag lots in partition processes if she wished to prohibit them in established neighborhood. Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman accepted Ms. Bishow's suggestion as a friendly amendment to the motion. Mr. Farmer suggested that staff could examine standards that dictated the number of curb cuts, for example, allowed for flag lots. He said that there were instances where flag lots were only allowed with shared driveways to cut down on paving and reduce curb cuts. He suggested that MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2000 Page 8 Work Session