Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly said he had been prepared to support the original motion because it was a temporary <br />solution that would be in place for two or three years. He did not think that allowing some flag <br />and alley lots would change the landscape significantly in terms of density although it could <br />adversely impact some surrounding properties. Mr. Kelly did not think the motion was a <br />neighborhood protection measure as it did not prevent flag lots in subdivisions of ten or more lots <br />in an established neighborhood. He was more concerned with piecemeal partitions, saying that <br />such partitions would not result in "much bang for the buck" in terms of the City reaching its <br />density goals and maintaining the urban growth boundary in its place, but they could have a <br />tremendously negative impact on adjacent neighbors. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that flag lots could help keep the urban growth boundary in place and help the City <br />to achieve density. He felt that what the code was missing were rules related to massing and <br />maximum square footage of the structures built. If the lot involved was sufficiently large, he <br />trusted the existing code to allow the development that occurred to be done in a reasonable way. <br />He advocated for a work program item that examined the cumulative and specialized <br />neighborhood impacts. <br /> <br /> The vote on the amendment was a 3:3 tie, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. <br /> Meisner voting no, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Rayor, and Mr. Pap8 voting yes; Mayor <br /> Torrey voted for the amendment and the motion passed, 4:3. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thought the updated code's reduced minimum lot size would result in a proliferation <br />of flag and alley lots. She said she would like to see a permanent prohibition on flag and alley <br />lots but hoped that examination of asset mapping, cottage zoning, and other strategies that <br />achieved density would allow the City Council to abandon the concept of flag lots, which she <br />believed destroyed the fabric of existing neighborhoods. She noted that the "Gang of Four" <br />(Friends of Eugene, Chamber of Commerce, Lane County Homebuilders Association, and <br />Neighborhood Leaders Council) had held some design charettes on nodal development, and <br />there was a lot of consensus that the City should protect the character of the existing <br />neighborhood, and not attempt to achieve density by subdividing existing residential lots or <br />redeveloping the existing housing with four-plexes, but rather by redeveloping industrial sites, <br />putting housing on top of retail uses, and looking at other areas that were undeveloped to <br />achieve density. <br /> <br /> The main motion passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend Table 9.2740 to only allow Equestrian Academy and Stables, <br /> Equestrian Trails, and Golf Courses in R-1 when approved in a planned unit <br /> development. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman spoke in favor of the motion, saying the prohibition would preserve valuable <br />residential land. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he supported the motion in terms of efficient use of residential land. He asked staff <br />if it was aware of any unintended consequences from the motion. Ms. Bishow said that there <br />could be a private property owner with a barn and some horses operating an equestrian <br />operation. Staff was not sure of the number of properties that would be affected. If the motion <br />passed, those uses could not expand. Golf courses now located in R-1 zones would be a <br />nonconforming use, and those uses could not expand if the motion passed. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 2000 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />