CC Minutes - 04/16/12 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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