Laserfiche WebLink
there may be topographic instances where that was not feasible and exceptions could be <br />considered in that case. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that there were examples in her neighborhood of flag lots with shared <br />driveways that appeared to work well, were attractive, and were appropriate to the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said that he hoped the City would maintain flexibility in allowing development of flag lots <br />by instituting some kind of design standards to address the issues raised by Ms. Taylor as an <br />alternative to passage of the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner opposed the motion, saying that when he traveled he made a point of looking at <br />development and he had seen many situations where infill had worked well, and it might require <br />design standards to make that happen. He was unwilling to hold existing neighborhoods sacred, <br />pointing out that much of south Eugene was developed in an old water district with lots a third of <br />an acre or larger, which was a waste of land. He wanted the City to address that in the future in <br />some positive manner. Mr. Meisner said that the motion would preclude that from occurring. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ agreed with Mr. Meisner, saying that passage of the motion could mean that land that <br />might and ought to be developed could no longer be partitioned and thus no longer developed. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that he supported the motion because it did not preclude flag lots in new <br />developments. He hoped that, in case the motion failed, staff could develop an approach that <br />depended on the size of the existing lot to address the large-lot issue mentioned by Mr. Meisner. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor was very concerned about protecting established neighborhoods, saying people <br />decided the type of neighborhood they wanted to live in, and a right to continue to live there. She <br />supported a variety of types of neighborhoods. She said that there were good reasons not to <br />divide lots in southeast Eugene, including the hilly terrain and soil types that were not suitable for <br />construction. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman favored the motion. She believed there were equity issues involved. She asked <br />why the City could not protect the existing lots in the urban core of 8,000 or 9,000 square feet if <br />people were developing large lots at the edge of the community. She thought the City should <br />protect the single-family housing in the core and create an opportunity for a diversity of housing, <br />rather than forcing everything to be small lots and higher density housing. Another equity issue <br />was the geographic constraints to the creation of flag lots. Ms. Bettman did not think many would <br />be created in the south hills and the majority will occur in already established neighborhoods in <br />the core. She said that residents expressed a strong dislike of flag lots because they could result <br />in the installation of a manufactured house in the back yard of a historic house. She agreed with <br />Ms. Taylor about the proliferation of driveway cuts resulting from flag lots, which she believed <br />would result in a vacant street scape and conflicts between pedestrians and automobiles. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor disagreed with Ms. Bettman. He said that he had seen many flag lots in Eugene and <br />while he did not think they represented the most desirable development he thought them <br />necessary for infill and for maintaining the urban growth boundary. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Rayor. He saying that he was not talking about hilly terrain but the <br />many flat large lots in south Eugene in the area south of Sundance Natural Foods. In some <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2000 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />