CC Minutes - 10/12/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

review process, but that recommendation was not brought forward by the Planning Commission. Mr. Kelly asked the council to consider further discussion on the topic of a design review process with the potential for general application across the community. Mr. Kelly said if the project was implemented at the same time as an opportunity siting study, the City might find opportunities to significantly increase density across the area. Because that had not occurred, he was nervous about the very major changes being proposed. Mr. Lowe said the scale of the development and the fact it worked over a twelve-block area reduced staff’s nervousness about the impacts of the proposal. If the area was larger, staff would be more concerned. Mr. Kelly reiterated his concern that the project would be a model for other neighborhoods. Ms. Bettman suggested the density that was identified for the area originally was not necessarily in the best interests of the neighborhood or the city. She said the City needed to be careful about how redevelopment occurred in urban core neighborhoods or residents would begin to leave them for areas outside the urban growth boundary. She thought what was being proposed was modest with regard to preserving the livability of the neighborhood and stabilizing its population. She looked forward to the next step, opportunity siting. Referring to Section 9.3065(2)(a)(3), which stipulated that the original lot prior to creation of a flag lot was not subject to the minimum R-1 lot size, Ms. Bettman asked if that meant the primary lot could be any size at all. City Planner Gabe Flock clarified that the section removed an existing code standard that called for the original lot to have a minimum size of 13,000 square feet prior to the land division. The minimum lot size for single dwellings and attached secondary dwellings would be 4,500 square feet. Ms. Bettman confirmed with staff that the original lot must be at least 9,000 square feet. She did not think that was clear in the text she reviewed. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lowe said that the definition of open space could be found in the code. Ms. Bettman suggested that open space could take the form of concrete. Mr. Lowe said the CAFHN thought the definition of open space in the code to be misleading and it was a major issue in the process. Mr. Nystrom said that open space could be something other than lawn, like hardscape. There were dimensional requirements to ensure the space was usable. Ms. Bettman indicated that was an issue for her. Ms. Taylor believed the project served to protect an established neighborhood and assisted with another council goal, that of encouraging people to live in the central part of the city. Mr. Poling solicited a third round of questions and comments. Mr. Kelly agreed about the need to protect established neighborhoods, but he did not think that meant there would be no change in those neighborhoods. He agreed with Ms. Bettman that the existing density in the neighborhood might not be appropriate, but he questioned how the council could address the neighborhood’s specific issues while keeping in mind the citywide implications of the project. Mr. Kelly noted Mr. Lowe’s request to the Planning Commission, reflected in the minutes of September 26, to refrain from establishing the project as a pattern for other neighborhoods without considering what was really broken, which was the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts. He asked how an examination of those districts could be made to occur soon, and questioned the relationship of that exercise to opportunity siting. Mr. Lowe said staff was anxious to address those elements of the code it believed were structurally unsound, but it was a work load issue. Ms. Muir said that the issue was also tied to the minor land use code amendments. She suggested the council could reprioritize the work plan to address the issue. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2005 Page 4 Work Session