Laserfiche WebLink
Responding to Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Bettman said that if a portion of a site was not buildable <br />because of a natural resource, that would need to be taken into consideration. However, she <br />pointed out that would already be taken into account in the case of a subdivision or planned unit <br />development. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if adoption of the motion meant a homeowner could not buy the lot next to their <br />property and add it to their property. Ms. Bishow said the code would not affect ownership. If the <br />property owner bought the lot next door and subsequently requested removal of the lot line to <br />create a nonconforming lot, that lot line removal application would be denied. The owner could <br />own the property and use it but it could not be taken out of the residential lands inventory as a <br />separate legal lot. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked if the owner of an existing house on a lot exceeding the maximum had a house <br />that burned down would be allowed to rebuild. Ms. Bishow said yes. Mr. Pap8 cited the situation <br />Mr. Jacobson referred to earlier and asked if the owner would be allowed to retain an acre of a <br />three-acre parcel where the remaining two acres were to be developed at higher densities. Ms. <br />Bishow said no. The owner would be required to plat the property and could choose to retain <br />ownership of the remaining lots until they could be sold. In practice, the owner could retain a <br />large area but legally, at the time of subdivision, the land would be platted and future lots <br />established for infill development. Mr. Jacobson said that if the property owner developed a <br />conceptual plan showing how the property would be divided in the future, the property could <br />receive an exception. Mr. Rayor liked the concept, also noting that on occasion, large lots were <br />affected by conservation easements. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked if a lot that exceeded the suggested maximum could be annexed without penalty. <br />Ms. Bishow said yes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to delete the phrase "some <br /> flexibility for" and insert "for circumstances such as topographically <br /> constrained lands, conservation easements, and partitions for the use of <br /> putting some land into development," and to require the developer to submit <br /> a conceptual buildout plan. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman indicated opposition to the amendment if it meant the creation of one- and two-acre <br />lots. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked staff to enlarge on the list of circumstances when it developed the code text. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly believed the amendment was unneeded because the council was not drafting the code <br />but instead providing broad direction to staff. However, he would vote for the amendment in the <br />interest of moving forward. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thought Mr. Rayor's concern was already addressed in the final sentence of the <br />motion. A property owner who wished to retain a single acre of a three-acre property could do so <br />by developing the remaining two acres in a way that achieved the density of 12 units per acre. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner concurred. He added that he would not be comfortable with a code that allowed a <br />property owner to develop a five-acre property in such a manner that they retained four acres in a <br />single development site and developed the fifth acre at a high density. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 12 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />