CC Minutes - 12/14/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mayor Piercy called for questions and comments from the council. Ms. Taylor said if this problem had not come to other councilors yet, it would. She believed it would happen increasingly. People were calling her and saying they formerly had a nice backyard and now they faced a wall. She said she supported Growth Management (GMS) Policy 6, which called for increased density of new housing development while maintaining the character and livability of neighborhoods. That was not occurring. She did not care about new housing developments because she presumed they would be designed appropriately and the people who bought houses in them would know what they were getting into. She did not think it was right to change the character of existing neighborhoods, and that was occurring. Ms. Taylor believed that regulations should be different for established neighborhoods. She thought 4,500 square foot lots were very small, particularly in established neighborhoods. She did not think flag lots should be permitted, pointing out that such structures are permitted to be 30 feet high, thus towering over neighboring one-story structures. She said she had seen one such development ruin four backyards. It lowered property values and affected people’s peace of mind. The situation was worse when the develop- ment was on a hill. Ms. Taylor said that building height should depend on the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Kelly said he did not interpret GMS Policy 6 as implying increased densities happened only in new neighborhoods. He interpreted it as applying to new development anywhere in the community. He asked if there was any legislative history or intent the council could examine. Mr. Kelly agreed that inappropriate infill was occurring in the community, although he acknowledged people had different ideas about what constituted inappropriate infill. He liked the idea of addressing the issue through a combination of opportunity siting and density allocation. He said that opportunity siting could direct infill where it was appropriate, and combined with the density allocation, would make sure that everyone had a place to live in the future. He suggested that another place to address the issue would be through design standards, such as the design standards associated with multi-family development. The alternative path could be another approach. Mr. Kelly noted that there were currently no single-family design standards, although the council had spent considerable time discussing such residential design standards when it approved the Chambers Area Revisited Project. He suggested the council consider those standards when it considered infill issues in the future. Mr. Pryor said he thought progress was being made. He thought the City should do more of what it had done in the Chambers area to work with the neighbors while still maintaining its density goals. He agreed the council would have differing definitions on what inappropriate infill is, and that could be addressed as code revision opportunities came up. Mr. Papé said he also encountered the issue cited by Ms. Taylor. He hoped there was a way to get at the problem, such as through a zoning overlay. He asked how the City could make GMS Policy 6 work, given that the council wanted to increase residential densities throughout the community. Mayor Piercy said the problem for her was the notion of trying to be sensitive to individual neighborhoods and situations in neighborhoods while still having clear rules for people to live by. That conflict was a tough one. She understood the sensitivity issue, but she also understood that people planned their lives in accordance with City rules. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of comments. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 7 Work Session