CC Minutes - 11/28/05 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

would be required to remain so designated. He noted that PDD only saw one or two of such requests per year. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Solomon, Mr. Nystrom affirmed that the substitute motion would remove the original amendment’s flexibility. He reiterated that the current language was inflexible and the original amendment had sought to increase the flexibility. He thought, should the code remain the same, staff would have to be more “up front” with developers so that it was understood that a designation could not be changed at a later date. Councilor Kelly acknowledged that this referred to land zoned R-1, residential, only and that R-1 land had no minimum density requirements. However, he wished to underscore that the City’s growth management policy sought to promote density. He asked if the fact that a developer would label a lot for a duplex, triplex, or fourplex would have any impact on whether an application was approved or denied. Mr. Nystrom replied that it did in terms of maximum density. He said the number of units proposed could not exceed the maximum. Councilor Kelly asked why a developer would ever designate a lot for a duplex, triplex, or fourplex. Mr. Nystrom replied that it was in essence a streamlined approach that would allow a developer to create such units without having to go through a planned unit development (PUD) process. Councilor Kelly indicated that he was willing to support Councilor Bettman’s amendment if only to bring it back for more discussion in the second round of amendments. Councilor Bettman averred that if flexibility such as the original amendment would allow was approved, a person who was zoned for a fourplex could build a single-family house on a 16,000 square foot lot. She felt a developer could “totally circumvent” the maximum lot size and this was antithetical to the City’s growth management policies. Councilor Papé indicated his willingness to delay the discussion. He thought he would advocate for allowing some flexibility to take things one step down, such as allowing a fourplex to be replaced by a triplex. In response to a question from Councilor Solomon, Mr. Nystrom affirmed that the topic would be deferred to next round of potential amendments with a yes vote on Councilor Bettman’s substitute amendment. He could not say what would happen to the proposed amendment next, except that it would be placed on the list for the Planning Commission to review in the next phase. Roll call vote; the motion to substitute Councilor Bettman’s motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Poling voting in opposition. Roll call vote; the amended Staff Recommended Motion (B) passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the motion with Staff Recommended Motion (C) from page 236 of the Agenda Item Summary. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 5 Regular Session