Item 1: Ordinances on Infill Compatibility Standards Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

Gretchen Miller , 1036 Adams Street, agreed with the remarks of Mr. Givens. She had witnessed the neighborhood’s ups and downs and had hung in when many others sold out. She thought the neighbor- hood was special and had raised her children there. She said that her children’s friends had been drawn to her house for the reasons mentioned by Mr. Givens. She thought it worth preserving the neighborhood for its character. She did not want a low-density neighborhood; she wanted an active and vibrant neighbor- hood and development that enhanced it. She agreed with others who criticized the infill development that had occurred in the neighborhood, saying some of it was insensitive and built with no awareness of its surroundings. Ms. Miller did not think those developments could be pleasant places to live. She also felt sorry for those who lost their sunshine and views and those things that made the neighborhood a special place to be. She encouraged the commission’s support for the proposed zone. th Garrick Mishaga Avenue, spoke of his own experience living and working in the , 254 West 14 neighborhood and his appreciation of the neighborhood. He liked being able to walk to nearby local businesses and neighborhood amenities and in his walks saw some of the most diverse housing in the community existing side-by-side. He knew most of his neighbors and thought the mix added to his experience in the neighborhood. Mr. Mishaga noted that he had been a member of the ICS Task Team and Multi-Dwelling Committee as a neighborhood representative. He was also a landscape architect and in that role was aware of the importance of maintaining quality neighborhood form and character. Mr. Mishaga described a recent infill development that had displaced an older single-family structure and the fact that the setbacks required by the City created unusable spaces and what space that remained had been paved over. th Paul Conte , 1461 West 10 Avenue, noted the technical work that supported the recommendations before the commission. He believed that the City of Eugene had failed to play by its own rules and created a situation of overarching unfairness to the neighborhood. After decades of stability, the R-2 zone density and building standards were radically changed by the City Council without any meaningful engagement with the affected community. The changes allowed density to exceed the density called for in the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan designation, conflicted with the intent of refinement plans, violated Growth Management Study policies to maintain neighborhood character and livability, and ignored the need for standards to provide predictability. As a result, a neighbor could find themselves in the position of living next to a four-plex rising 30 feet high five feet from their backyard. Mr. Conte said that, unlike the City, the neighbors played by the rules and, after recognizing what the City had done, spent months documenting the neighborhood character and crafting a proposal that allowed a 40 percent increase in density while preventing further neighborhood degradation. He noted the review process the proposal had gone through. There being no more requests to speak, Mr. Carroll closed the public hearing. He called for questions from the commission. Mr. Hledik referred to a letter dated October 12, 2009, from Mr. Conte, which included figures related to current densities and additional dwellings and which mentioned a figure of 14.6 dwellings units per net acre or greater. He asked staff to validate those figures. Ms. Harding indicated that staff concurred with Mr. Conte’s results and indicated they would be included in the draft findings provided to the commission for its deliberations. 2. Building Height (CA 09-06) Mr. Carroll opened the public hearing. Ms. Harding provided background information on the public involvement process that led to the proposal before the commission. The purpose of the proposal was to provide greater infill compatibility in DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 20, 2008 Page 3