Laserfiche WebLink
the maximum lot size if the subdivision achieves an overall density of 12 <br /> units per acre. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Jacobson recollected that the commission and <br />council had discussed maximum lot sizes about six years ago. He said that the commission <br />agreed one problem with establishing a maximum were those cases where, for example, an <br />owner of a large lot formerly in farm house wanted to partition the lot, retain the residence, and <br />sell the remainder to a developer. The lot would not meet the suggested standard. He said that <br />the council could direct staff to develop a list of exceptions. Mr. Jacobson added that the City <br />was no longer seeing large lot development because of the heavier demand for land. When <br />large lots were proposed, they were generally proposed because of topographic conditions. He <br />noted that people could vacate property lines and combined two lots to create a larger lot. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs said that the City had received applications for and denied large-lot planned unit <br />developments because the topography precluded even two units per acre on a site. She <br />believed that any maximum lot size established would need fairly detailed exceptions to address <br />some of the issues that might arise. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor suggested that in the case referred to by Mr. Jacobson, development could be <br />conditioned on making the largest lot a future phase of a subdivision. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner recollected that the commission, which he been a member of, had a policy <br />discussion of the issues involved and did not discuss the technicalities mentioned by Mr. <br />Jacobson. He said that the council at that time had directed the commission to consider some <br />"stop-gap" measures related to minimum densities in the residential zones. The commission <br />recommended minimum densities for the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones, which were later adopted by <br />the council. The commission had discussed what changes it could make to the R-1 and RA <br />zones to achieve the density goal in the Metro Plan, and decided against recommending a <br />minimum density. Commissioners agreed that, even if the council adopted a maximum lot size, it <br />did not want to prohibit people from, for example, combining lots. Mr. Meisner said that the only <br />way to achieve the density goal in the single-family zones was by establishing a maximum lot <br />size. He thought the maximum suggested would result in a much larger lot than was currently <br />being developed. Mr. Meisner supported clear exceptions standards. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that he and Ms. Bettman, in discussing the concepts behind the motion, had <br />discussed the need for flexibility for topographically constrained land, much of which was <br />unbuildable. He said that the motion was intended to give staff direction that the suggested lot <br />size was a reasonable maximum for R-1 zones. He pointed out that the council would have an <br />opportunity to review the exceptions staff developed. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Meisner and Mr. Kelly and said that the motion provided the <br />flexibility that Mr. Kelly referred to. She said that she was trying to avoid creating code language <br />but did not want to see the code so broadly worded that it subverted the intent of establishing a <br />maximum lot size. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked if the code could be written to provide flexibility for the presence on a lot of <br />streams and other natural resources such as a large stand of trees. She thought it would be a <br />good idea to include such considerations as exceptions. She questioned the overall density <br />exception, thinking it might be too high. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />