Item 1: Ordinances on Infill Compatibility Standards Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lawless generally supported the proposal, but had concerns about cars backing up onto alleys. He offered several suggestions for improving the proposed language. He was concerned that a loophole would be built into the code that would cause the code language to be dysfunctional. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Harding said several people had raised questions regarding setbacks and screening. She understood Carol Shirmer was trying to raise considerations for multi-family dwellings on small lots. She added the committee developed language restricting tandem parking within 30 feet of a public street because the committee wanted eyes on the street and an area for a building between the public street and the 30 foot setback. Ms. Jerome explained a more specific response to the testimony could be prepared for the City Council presentation. Ms. Harding noted several people testified that tandem parking was a good thing, but there were reservations about the number of limitations attached to those provisions. Information could be developed to more fully explain the proposals to the City Council. Mr. Carroll asked if another mechanism such as building setbacks or parking in relation to public right-of- way lines could be considered to avoid the problem of creating a limited building envelope. Ms. Beierle stated the idea of more flexibility appealed to her, particularly in light of the desire to change the West University Refinement Plan to allow more flexibility around parking. Some of the proposals took flexibility in one place and imposed restriction in other places, which seemed counterproductive. The market and behavior would drive parking. Mr. Carroll noted unity on the proposal as discussed to this point, to move the proposal forward to the City Council with suggestions from the commission regarding tandem parking related issues. Bedroom definition Ms. Harding directed commissioners to page 57 in the AIS and reviewed the proposed code language. She noted that the Enforcement implementation committee recently started its work on violation of occupancy rules, and the mechanisms for enforcement. Mr. Duncan observed the proposal was complicated and referred to the language proposed by Gordon Anslow in his testimony regarding privacy and interior doors. Following discussion by the commission, Mr. Carroll noted consensus to include a privacy component to forward to the City Council for consideration. Mr. Hledik suggested eliminating Eugene Code (EC) 9.0500 (C) and bolstering EC 9.0500 (A) to incorporate privacy issues. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. Jerome stated UO dormitory rooms were not regulated as multi-family housing. There was consensus to support Ms. Gardner’s suggestion to strike EC 9.0500 (C) and to expand EC 9.0500 (A) to incorporate privacy issues. DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2009 Page 7