CC Minutes - 06/16/08 Work Session/Public Hearing

Home Browse Search

requirement further aggravated that impact. By increasing the amount of required parking without increasing allowed height, the City further decreased the potential to develop units. DLCD Goal 10 rules required Metro Plan designations for all residential lands that identified the allowed density. The City of Eugene had an obligation to adopt and apply zoning designations that allowed the maximum planned residential densities. The HBA asked the City Council to refer Amendments 5, 7 and 8 be referred to the ICS for further review. Katrina Wester, 3550 Sterling Woods, Ward 5, thanked the Council for its service and leadership to the community. She owned a small construction company and was past president of the HBA. She said we all lived in the community and needed to work together to plan for the community’s future. The community would continue to grow and the citizens needed to make difficult choices on how and where to accommo- date that growth. GMPs policies addressed growth within the UGB and the University area was zoned for and was the most practical location for high density development. However, proposed Amendments 5 and 7 would effectively downzone the property and needed further consideration. State law required that the City have a 20 year supply of buildable land and the high density zoning was taken into account when the study was performed. The task of deciding where the City would accommodate growth was not a simple one, and Amendments 5 and 7 had complex consequences to their implementation, thus needing more consideration. As the amendments were currently written, the conflicted with the City’s GMPs and the Metro Plan and Oregon land use law. Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki, 1025 Taylor, Ward 1, was a renter. He said the City’s method of determining building height by measuring from halfway up the roofline did not make sense. Lack of provisions for buffer zones with no transition in residential areas was short-sighted. Although underground parking was expensive, it was an option. He urged the City Council to pass the MICAP amendments. Pauline Hutson, 1025 Taylor, lived in a small infill house. Her family had a modest income and the availability of affordable housing in safe, attractive neighborhoods was important to them. Eugene had a limited number of affordable small homes for rent or purchase, particularly in neighborhoods where people with modest incomes wanted to live rather than were forced to live. The Jefferson and Westside neighbor- hoods had affordable, appealing housing with friendly neighbors that was within walking distance to stores, restaurants and the library. It was important that the character and stability of the established neighbor- hoods not be degraded by the “human warehouse” apartments that were being jammed in alleys and back yards by developers with no concern for the community. The HPB chair did not speak for her when opposing the proposed MCAs to help prevent degradation of her neighborhood and community. She asked the City Council to approve the amendments that would help protect Eugene’s neighborhoods. Ed McMahon, 1233 Hilo Drive, Executive Director of the HBA said the Planning Commission had recommended that Amendments 5 and 7 be forwarded to the ICS and the HPB had agreed with the Commission. He expressed concerns about Amendments 3, 8, 9, and 11. He encouraged the Council to forward Amendments 5, 7 and 8 to the ICS for more citizen involvement, adding that to do otherwise would be in direct conflict with GMPs 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11. A workable compromise existed supported by the feeling that everyone loved the community. He asked that the Council allow the necessary dialogue to take place and thanked it for its commitment to the community. Rob Handy, 455½ River Road, past co-chair of the NLC, had met with representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, the HBA, Friends of Eugene, City staff and consultants, to develop a process for the MCA MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 11 Work Session