Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

City Manager Ruiz stated he was available to answer any questions that might arise. Ron Chase, 924 Sunnyside Drive, requested that the City Council postpone approval of the MCAs because they would have the net effect of decreasing housing density in a couple of neighborhoods as well as decreasing the number of allowable units, potentially setting a precedent for doing the same neighborhood by neighborhood citywide. Fifty percent of Eugene households were renters and the vacancy rate was very low, particularly regarding affordable housing. He daily saw how difficult it was for people with limited incomes to find an affordable rental through both his employment and personal circle. By decreasing density and increasing parking the council would effectively be increasing rents and pushing renters, particularly low-income renters, to the fringes of the urban growth boundary (UGB). With the increasing costs of transportation, whether people used mass transit or automobile, it was imperative to develop affordable housing downtown and in nearby core neighborhoods. He urged the City Council to look very closely at any change which inhibited that development and to follow the recommendation from the Housing Policy Board (HPB) by referring some of the changes to the Infill Compatibility Standards Task Team (ICS) for further discussion and to defer making permanent changes until a full discussion of the impact took place. Sue Prichard, 2671 Emerald Street, Ward 3, spoke as co-chair of the ICS. She said the ICS, the majority of whom represented neighborhood groups and had been involved from the early stages of the MCA process, was formed by the Planning Commission in November 2007. Other members represented the development, architectural and construction sectors of the community. The ICS formed a Minor Code Amendment Process Committee (MICAP) to review the proposed amendments which were selected by the Planning Commission and the City Council for the formal amendment process. MICAP reviewed each item, selected those that were of highest priority and brought their comments and recommendations to ICS for review and discussion. Fourteen of the twenty items were considered and commented upon. MICAP and ICS made no recommendations on the remaining six items. Ms. Prichard provided a copy to the council of the final ICS/MICAP recommendations presented to the Planning Commission. On March 17, 2008, the ICS unanimously passed a motion approving the MICAP report. All of the ICS recommenda- tions were in line with staff recommendations with the exception of the topic Required Parking in Residential Parking Program Permit Areas. ICS suggested a change to the proposed amendment that addressed the specific problem without addressing a potentially contentious citywide change. ICS had not had an opportunity to address the proposed amendments added by the City Council since the original list was developed, nor had it addressed the most recent minor revisions proposed by the Planning Commission. With the unanimous vote of the ICS prior to the additions of the City Council and minor revisions proposed by the Planning Commission, there was clear support to move forward with the ordinance. th Lauren Hulse, 1256 East 20 Avenue, Ward 3, reiterated the City Council direction to the Planning Commission on March 10, 2008. The City Council asked the City Manager to direct the Planning Commission to pursue the MCA process that would mitigate the following impacts of incompatible infill: ? Excessive building height in R-3 and R-4 proximal to R-1 zones to reflect a height transition to R-1 zoned areas. ? Excessive demand for on-street parking in multi-family development in units with three or more bedrooms in R-3 zones. Residents had worked with Planning staff and the developer of the build- th ing at 19 Avenue and Alder Street to scale back the building from seven to four stories, and would continue to work with any developer that wanted to build in the neighborhood, particularly along thth 18 and 19 Avenues, so that buildings could be built that were compatible with the well estab- lished neighborhood. MICAP #5 offered a compromise for both neighbors and developers that pro- MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 3 Work Session