Laserfiche WebLink
2b. Review design standards for single-family housing that have been <br /> adopted in other cities and then bring forward proposed standards for <br /> consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. <br /> 2c. Consider a density dispersal policy as outlined in the public testimony <br /> submitted as of June 19, 2000, by David Hinkley and Sue Wolling. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor pulled Item l(b). <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor determined from staff that Item l(b) referred to a secondary dwelling or primary <br />dwelling. <br /> <br /> The motion to approve Item l(b) passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br /> Mr. Meisner, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> prohibit in residentially zoned areas the creation of new flag and alley lots <br /> and any other lot size reductions, except in new subdivisions of 10 or more <br /> lots, until staff evaluate and bring forward recommendations for other <br /> managed density strategies, such as asset mapping, cottage zoning, and <br /> nodal development. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner clarified that the motion did not apply in new development areas, and was not a <br />permanent prohibition; it was designed to give the City time to evaluate other recommendations <br />and protect existing neighborhoods from what could be inappropriate development. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked about the scope of the problem. Ms. Bishow said that the City had a fairly high <br />number of flag lots created in developed neighborhoods on lots of more than 10,000 square feet. <br />A flag portion of the lot was generally in the backyard of an existing house. She said that about <br />half the partitions the City received were flag lot situations. Mr. Pap8 asked how long it would <br />take to develop a permanent solution. Ms. Bishow said that it depended on the council's <br />direction but she believed it would take at least a year. Mr. Pap8 did not object to the motion if <br />something was done to alleviate the larger problem it attempted to address. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor did not support the motion. He agreed with the alley prohibition, but said that a flag lot <br />was a common minor partition and the proposed code change could mean the loss of the <br />livelihood of a citizen or their retirement money. He said he would be comfortable with the motion <br />if it addressed lots of 10,000 square feet or less. He asked if the motion was predicated on the <br />fact the code was inadequate to protect the surrounding neighbors from the construction of a <br />new home on a flag lot, or if it represented a "not in my backyard" approach. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bishow said that the existing minimum lot size in an <br />R-1 zone for creating a flag lot was 10,500 square feet, excluding the area needed for the <br />driveway to flag lot; she suggested that the council might want to consider a minimum lot size for <br />the flag lots and adjust the minimum lot size upward. <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to amend the motion to indicate flag <br /> lots on residential lots greater than or equal to 13,500 square feet would be <br /> permitted. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 2000 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />