Laserfiche WebLink
asked the council to eliminate the special standards in the R-3 and R-4 zones related to driveways, which <br />imposed standards on single-family homes in those zones. Ms. Bishow concluded by expressing concern <br />that the broad nature of the proposed code changes could result in recently constructed multi-family <br />housing to become nonconforming structures, and recommended that the council exempt those structures <br />from that designation when it adopted the code. <br /> <br />Dane Butler <br />, 3396 Amherst Way, expressed concern that the code amendments related to driveways and <br />parking areas in multi-family zones could eliminate features that helped make developments special, such <br />as front porches. He anticipated that single-family, not just multi-family, development would be vastly <br />impacted by the amendments. <br /> <br />Ed McMahon <br />, 1065 River Road, Homebuilders Association of Lane County, asked the council to review <br />the written testimony carefully. He did not think the standards were where they needed to be and some <br />minor revisions would address the remaining problems. Mr. McMahon believed the code amendments <br />highlighted some of the areas where the Seven Pillars of Envision Eugene conflicted, and the community <br />needed to find a balance in eliminating that conflict. He recommended additional vetting of the standards <br />so consensus could be reached. <br /> <br />Bill Aspegren <br />, 1939 Alder Street, noted the origin of several of the standards in the work of the ICS Task <br />Team and said the standards were well-thought out and well-vetted. He believed the absence of standards <br />such as those being proposed was chipping away at neighborhood livability. Mr. Aspegren said the <br />standards were critical to neighborhoods and he urged the council to adopt them quickly. <br /> <br />Councilor Brown closed the public hearing and solicited council questions. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor believed it was past time for the City to do something about incompatible development <br />and the standards appeared to make sense. She asked staff to speak to citizen recommendations to <br />increase bicycle parking. Senior Planner Alissa Hansen noted the current bicycle parking requirement for <br />multi-family development of one per unit. She reported that staff had initially proposed two spaces for <br />units with three or more bedrooms, but the Planning Commission decided against that recommendation <br />on the basis that the City would be doing some bicycle parking amendments as a result of the Bicycle <br />Pedestrian Master Plan and commissioners thought a more comprehensive review would be useful. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor asked staff to comment on Ms. Bishow’s remarks regarding driveways. Ms. Hansen <br />said one amendment proposed limitations on driveways and parking in the R-3 and R-4 zones. She <br />anticipated the amendment would have the most impact in neighborhoods around the University of <br />Oregon campus, where development intensity was frequently increased on a lot but did not reach the <br />threshold of the multi-family standards. The amendments limited the amount of paving to a certain width <br />and depth and would eliminate the angled parking that frequently occurred in front yards. While the <br />standards were mostly intended for application around the university, the Planning Commission <br />recommended they be applied community-wide in the R-3 and R-4 zones. Councilor Taylor suggested <br />the standards could also be applied in the R-1 zone. Ms. Hansen anticipated that staff would ask the <br />council to consider code amendments related to the infill compatibility standards for single-family <br />development, which would include consideration of lot coverage and impervious surfaces. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor asked staff to speak to Mr. Butler’s remarks about the impact of the driveway standards. <br />Ms. Hansen was unsure of the scope of the concern involved, and speculated Mr. Butler might be <br />concerned that the City would consider a walkway to be a driveway or parking area, or he might be <br />concerned that staff was proposing that walkways from the sidewalk to the front of the house be <br />physically separated from the driveway. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2012 Page 2 <br /> Public Hearing <br /> <br />