CC Minutes -12/10/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman asked if the task team was looking at minimum density requirement. Ms. Harding suggested the solutions would test that question. The task team was still in the stages of issue identification so there had been no discussion of that topic. Ms. Bettman maintained that was an equity issue. She said that the R- 2 zone used to have lower densities, and then the R-2 definition changed and “all of a sudden” residents living in single-family homes in those neighborhoods were facing undesirable infill. Without a minimum density, there was no equity to the City’s density requirement. The City planned to absorb new residents inside the urban growth boundary, but certain neighborhoods were “taking” the density while in other neighborhoods, even those zoned R-4, developers had the choice to build more expensive homes at much lower densities. Without a minimum density, the City would never achieve equity among neighborhoods or the goals of absorbing the housing units it needed. Mr. Poling asked if it was possible to have Metro Television broadcast a community workshop on the subject or make it a topic of the City’s “Working City” program. Mr. Zelenka also thanked staff and the task team for their work on the topic, which he thought was the council’s highest priority for the next year. He suggested a focus group of “regular” residents be convened. He also liked the idea of visual preference surveys and the use of pictures and asked how staff would translate pictures into code language. Ms. Harding said the task team had indicated its preference to focus on clear and objective standards to be applied to all new development. She acknowledged that turning a recommended solution into actual code language was somewhat challenging, but staff would research what other communities had done and test the application of the new code language through actual case scenarios. Mr. Zelenka asked if the task team was considering incentives such as ‘feebates.’ Ms. Harding said that the topic of incentives had come up. The task team had discussed facilitating the type of development preferred by the code, but had not determined how that would occur. Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s remarks, Mr. Zelenka suggested the council continued to have the conversation because neighborhood associations and residents objected to infill developments. They did not like them for one reason or another. He asked how that could be addressed through the process. He hoped the committee could consider a process that “headed off that kind of negative input” into the process. Ms. Harding said the issue had come up, and the Single Dwelling Committee was considering the issue of notification and ways of fostering earlier collaboration or cooperation between the developer and neighbors, particularly in regard to development proposals that otherwise required no notice. She reiterated her comments about the task team’s preference for clear and objective standards, suggesting that such standards would give developers certainty while protecting those things that neighbors like. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Harding said that the task team had no representative from the Bethel neighborhood. She said not all areas of the community were represented on the task team, which was why the task teak was planning its exhaustive public input phase commencing in early January 2009. She added that those areas not represented on the task team could have similar issues to those who were represented. Mayor Piercy noted many examples of flag lots in the Bethel area. She also noted an attractive example of the use of the panhandle lot approach near Washburn Park. Ms. Ortiz encouraged more direct outreach to the Bethel and Trainsong neighborhoods. Ms. Bettman said an issue related to flag lots, particularly larger lots farther out from the core, was that they MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2008 Page 5 Work Session