Laserfiche WebLink
<br />have 23 parking spaces for which there was insufficient room on the standard city lot on which the project <br />was built. <br /> <br />Dale Deason, <br />1527 Charnelton Street, said the issue was not one of density and sprawl. The need to <br />increase the population in the city core had been recognized and accepted for many years by the community <br />and the neighbors. The question was not whether but how to densify, and managing the process was an <br />issue. Changes in the code that relaxed requirements had resulted a doubling of allowable density in his <br />neighborhood in 20 years. He was concerned this had been done in bits and pieces over time rather than <br />through careful planning with almost no involvement by neighborhood residents and no one thinking of <br />unintended consequences or how to avoid turning a thriving neighborhood into a slum. The City had <br />targeted his neighborhood for radical transformation. All but one house on his block was single family but <br />this would change with the City’s goal of doubling the population over the next 20 years. The outcomes <br />would not be good if done with care and involvement by the residents. This was not an urban renewal <br />project in which everything was torn down and you start over. The neighborhoods were full of middle class <br />families who took care of their property and patronized local businesses. They were great places to live <br />and were thriving. The proposed code amendments were from the grass roots and were not radical. They <br />added balance to the process. He urged the Council not to follow the notion that the issue was density <br />versus sprawl. The issue was how to do densification right and by approving the amendments the Council <br />would take a first step to ensure that the City’s residential neighborhoods were strengthened and not <br />degraded by the process. <br /> <br />Howard Galvin <br />, 2894 Warren Street, represented the HBA of Lane County. He asked the Council to not <br />pass but refer Amendments 5, 7 and 8 be referred to the ICS for more comprehensive review. The <br />amendments were not minor in scope and had large policy implications for the City. Although proposed <br />Amendments 5 and 7 may affect only a small geographic area near the University they would have a broad <br />negative effect in terms of policy on the community. The amendments allegedly reduced density near the <br />University which was an area zoned for high density development and had a need and demand for high <br />density development. He referred to recent Register Guard articles regarding a shortage of student housing. <br />Given the housing situation and the finite amount of land near the University he asked if the City wanted to <br />cut potential densities thereby cutting campus housing. The amendments, particularly the parking <br />requirements, would effectively halt new multi-family development near the University. It was bad long <br />term planning because it reduced housing, raised the cost of existing housing and increased the number of <br />students driving to campus. The amendments needed and deserved more in-depth study. <br /> <br />Laura Longdon, <br />4675 Goodpasture Loop, #82, Director of Government Affairs for HBA of Lane County. <br />The HBA opposed Amendments 5, 7 and 8, because they were not minor in scope and had large policy <br />effects on the community. She provided written testimony to the City Council. The amendments had long <br />term effects and violated State Land Use Law. Proposed Amendments 5 and 7 were contrary to the Metro <br />Plan policies for housing and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) Goal 10 <br />Administrative Rule for housing. Both the Metro Plan policies and DLCD Goal 10 rule were mandatory <br />standards for the proposed amendments to the code. The Metro Plan anticipated the demand for residential <br />land would be met through redevelopment and infill, and required that the zoning districts allow density <br />ranges consistent with the Plan. It called for increased density allowed in the metropolitan area through <br />code amendments. The proposed amendments reduced the height allowed along perimeter of any site zoned <br />R-3 and R-4 without increasing the height allowed in the middle of the sites, which effectively downzoned <br />property and precluded building the number of units the Metro Plan allowed on the sites. The parking <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />