Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

process that they were not in favor of zero growth, and realized the sustainability, “walkabilty” and “bikeability” benefits of living close-in. They believed appropriately managed infill growth benefited everyone, including the residents, City, UGB, environment, and University. He said many similar neighborhoods throughout the country had been destroyed by decisions such as the current proposals and asked why Eugene should follow that lead. Reading from a 2006 letter from Planning Commissioner Rick Duncan to then City Councilor David Kelly, Mr. Westervelt said, “Sometimes the government does not make correct decisions when it comes to land use. Because incorrect decisions are made, property owners should not be penalized until such time that a city could afford to change that action.” Residents of the SUN should not be penalized by deferring action on the proposed amendments. He asked the City Council to make the SUN a model of what an historic, livable neighborhood could be in times of density growth by passing the MICAPs including an amended version of Amendment 5. Doug Weber, 1330 Flintridge Avenue, spoke against passing MICAP, particularly parking and density in south Eugene neighborhoods. He had previously e-mailed his comments to the councilors. Changing zoning created multiple impacts on residents, the planning process, and property values. He referred to a recent article in the Register Guard and the shortage of housing for this year’s incoming freshman class at the University. Increased density and accompanying height to attain those densities could not be reconciled with older neighborhoods. Amendment 8 regarding drainage in River Road/Santa Clara (RR/SC) was unnecessary and potentially dangerous. The only option to most people in that area was a stormwater disposal system that would percolate water into the ground. The State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) had made the use of dry wells difficult and expensive, when allowed. He asked what would prevent DEQ from forbidding these systems next year. Another problem with the amendment was lack of an accurate drainage way. The definition needed to be changed. Marilyn Milne, 2156 Harris Avenue, Ward 3, president of the SUNA, submitted a statement on behalf of the SUNA Board of Directors. The neighborhood was an established neighborhood with a mix of housing stock that was walkable and had a good elementary school. The SUN was currently in a precarious situation due to old zoning changes that undermined the current livability of the neighborhood. In the 1984’s, the Greek system received approval to construct R-4 housing near campus. R-4 was limited to three- and four-story buildings at that time. In the 1960’s the R-4 height jumped to 120 feet, the equivalent of ten- to twelve-story buildings. SUNA was formed in 1974, thus had no role in the 1960’s changes. th Both longtime and newer residents were surprised to learn about the current allowable height on 18 and th 19 Avenues. In addition to the building heights, the height jumped from R-1 single family to R-3 and R-4 without any R-2 buffer zone in between. Other Oregon cities had prevented this type of jump. The SUNA request for an amended MICAP would put Eugene in conformance with other Oregon cities. The current zoning could allow up to 10,000 additional residents within a relatively small area. She said density should not equal intensity. MICAP Amendment 5 reduced building height while allowing for density. Zoning codes were a separate issue from affordable housing, and did not stipulate that housing had to be affordable. SUN residents were concerned about the livability of the neighborhood and were glad that GMP 6 stressed maintaining the character and livability of neighborhoods while creating infill. The City Council could achieve that goal by passing MICAP amendments, particularly Amendment 5. Carolyn Jacobs, 2040 Agate Street, appreciated that the City Council had been supportive of neighbor- hoods. Working closely with staff, an amendment that was both a compromise and an urgently needed course of protection for the SUN had been developed, while work continued with the ICS process. Amendment 5 placed limits on building heights that would have only a nominal effect, as most builders were building projects below the maximum heights, and most current projects around the University were still allowable under Amendment 5. Neighbors were concerned about the few buildings that would be MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 7 Work Session