CC Minutes -12/10/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Standards. Planner Patricia Thomas and Infill Compatibility Standards Task Team co-chair Sue Prichard were also present. Ms. Harding’s presentation included background on the project, information on the task team process, identification of preliminary issues, and next steps. Mayor Piercy asked if there was general agreement on the task team about what constituted good and bad infill. Ms. Harding said yes, but acknowledged it was difficult to describe. She said the Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) Task Team began to rely heavily on photographs and she thought such tools would be similarly important when the task team went out to the community. Mayor Piercy suggested a model could be used but she acknowledged that context was very important and hard to model. Ms. Harding said the issue was reflected in the task team’s concerns about design review, as good design could dramatically lessen impact. Mayor Piercy did not see anything in the presentation related to neighborhood preservation. She thought that was a different question from the question of what constituted acceptable infill as it touched on what residents found important to maintain in their neighborhood. She thought it important to keep that in mind. She thought the council had heard examples about how that occurred in the Moving Forward Together conference. Ms. Taylor determined from Ms. Harding that the council would consider code language related to the item in July 2009. Ms. Taylor commended the quality of the task team. At her request, Ms. Harding reviewed the proposed public process, noting it included both outreach to the general public and focus groups. She also anticipated the neighborhood organizations would host workshops. Ms. Taylor asked if the task team was discussing the issue of building heights in the case of a single new building in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Ms. Harding said no, and the item was not on the ICS work plan. Ms. Taylor thought that issue should be addressed as she was seeing much incompatible development in the R-1 zone. She also asked if the ICS Task Team had discussed eliminating flag lots. Ms. Harding said the task team had some interesting discussions on the topic but there was no preferred solution at this point. The task team was recommending that all the related issues, such as setbacks and building heights, be examined in greater detail. Ms. Taylor determined from Ms. Harding that the ICS task team had discussed the placement of windows. Ms. Taylor said window placement made a big difference to residents. Mr. Clark thanked staff and the task team for their hard work. He noted the impact issues identified as a result of multi-unit dwelling infill, which were being evaluated in regard to aesthetics, convenience, and livability. He asked what analysis was being done in regard to impacts on public utilities and the public infrastructure and said he would be interested in hearing more information about that and how increased densities in particular areas affected the existing system and system capacity, and what would be required to bring the system to capacity if it was not. He hoped that those issues were being given adequate study. Ms. Bettman spoke of the long time she perceived it was taking the City to complete work on design standards so that it accomplished infill and density in a way that preserved neighborhoods and decreased vehicle miles traveled. She said that the research about those issues had been done and was readily available. She encouraged staff to take advantage of the work done “way back when,” such as the 1994 visual preference survey. She said it cost a lot of money to have the discussions “over and over again” and get to the end and “not do what we needed to do.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2008 Page 4 Work Session