Item 2A: Approval of City Coucnil Minutes

Home Browse Search

roof pitch, street fa9ade, entry location, garage door width and height, driveway width and location, and factors related to the character of alleys. ML Lowe said the project engaged participants in a central policy issue; that of the transition of a neighborhood from one thing to another thing. At what density levels was a neighborhood, defined in part by its existing single~fami1y detached housing patterns, transfornled into a neighborhood in which multi- family attached housing dominated? The project was about how to implement Growth Management Study (GMS) Policy 6, which states that the City shall increase the density of new housing development while maintaining the character and livability of individual neighborhoods. ML Lowe pointed out the R~2 zone allowed up to 28 units per acre. The density standard proposed tor the R-2 zoned area was 15 units per acre, which was detemlined to be compatible with the existing neighborhood as it constituted the carrying capacity for a primarily detached housing model in this specific twelve-block area. Mr. Lowe reviewed the proposed density standard, which was one unit 011 lots less than or equal to 4,500 square feet, two units 011 lots between 4,500 and 9,200 square feet, and three units on lots greater than 9,200 square feet. He shared examples of the effects of those limits. He also noted the standards related to side yard setback, height, front yard setback, garages and driveways, alley front yards, and alley open spaces, and shared examples of the impacts of those standards. Mr. Lowe briefly noted compatibility standards regarding height and fa~ade as they related to commercial development. He called attention to proposed intersection improve.me.'nts and said information about them was contained in the meeting packet. Mr. Lowe said the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the proposed code amendments and transportation improvements. Mr. Poling solicited comments and questions from the council. Ms. Taylor congratulated the residents of the neighborhood for the excellent job they did ill developing the standards. She hoped the standards could be applied to other areas of the community. She asked if parking in a front yard was currently permitted. Mr. Lowe said front-yard parking was 110t only allowed, but permitted. Most contemporary residential structures have their parking in driveways located in the front yard. Ms. Taylor asked if an entire front yard could be converted to concrete. Mr. Lowe was unaware of any prohibition to that. Ms. Taylor suggested the council should address that issue. ML Kelly expressed appreciation for the neighborhood involvement in the project and said he was impressed with the thoroughness of the effort. He also thanked staff and the Planning Commission. Mr. Kelly said he was considering the citywide implications of the project. He suggested the standards could be considered as a precedent for other neighborhoods by some residents. Mr. Kelly asked if the development standards, in the absence of a simultaneous opportunity siting study and some density allocation for the neighborhood, represented "half a loaf" He noted the Planning Commission's split vote on the issue because of two commissioners' interest ill some opportunity siting to determine where density could go. Mr. Lowe said he would, in general, agree it would be half a loaf, but in this case he did not agree. The City had identified opportunity siting in a previous planning project in 1999 and accommo- dated the reduction in density for the R-2 zone. He said that the matter was contextual, and he thought opportunity siting should be done with in conjunction with any reduction in 7'oning or anticipated density. Mr. Kelly noted his long-time support for neighborhood refmement plans. He said the proposal before the MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 12, 2005 Page 2