HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/16/12 MeetingMINUTES
Eugene City Council
Council Chamber —City Hall
777 Pearl Street— Eugene, Oregon
April 16, 2012
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Brown, Pat Farr, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling,
Chris Pryor.
COUNCILORS ABSENT: Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka.
In the absence of Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy, Council President George Brown called the April 16,
2012, public hearing of the Eugene City Council to order.
1. PUBLIC HEARING:
An Ordinance Concerning Infill Compatibility Standards Related to Multi- Family
Developments, Multi- Family Zoning, Garbage and Recycling Screening, and Bicycle
Parking; and Amending Sections 9.0500, 9.2750, 9.2751, 9.3125, 9.3626, 9.5500, 9.6105,
9.6410, 9.6740, 9.6745, and 9.8030 of the Eugene Code, 1971 (City File CA 11 -2)
Assistant City Manager/Planning and Development Director Sarah Medary introduced the item, an
ordinance adopting new infill standards for multi - family housing. The purpose of the ordinance was to
clarify the Land Use Code to improve neighborhood livability and implement the strategies of Envision
Eugene. She reported that the Planning Commission unanimously supported the ordinance before the
council.
Councilor Brown opened the public hearing.
Carolyn Jacobs, 2040 Agate Street, advocated for the required inclusion of open space in dense housing,
noting that many cities required such amenities, particularly for larger developments. She recommended
that the council adopt a "step it back as you step it up" approach to design that allowed for both viable
lower density R -1 development and higher density R -3 development in the South University
Neighborhood. Ms. Jacobs recalled that in 2008, the Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) Task Team
identified encouragement of residential infill that enhanced the stability, quality, positive character, and
livability of residential neighborhoods as a goal. She believed the council could move the City in that
direction by making open space an integral element of all multi - family projects and sloped setbacks the
norm for every project along the R -1/R -3 interface. She believed the other code changes were well -
crafted and urgently needed.
Teresa Bishow, 2911 Tennyson Street, represented Arlie & Company. She reviewed highlights of her
written testimony, which she submitted into the record. She suggested that the City adopt clear standards
if it was trying to provide open space on a per project basis. However, she did not support the same
approach to mixed -use areas because of the additional density requirements and because those areas were
intended to support a broader range of uses and functions at a density that supported transit. Ms. Bishow
asked the council to eliminate the special standards in the R -3 and R -4 zones related to driveways, which
MINUTES— Eugene City Council April 16, 2012 Page 1
Public Hearing
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
Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to keep the record open for
written testimony until 5 p.m. on April 30, 2012. Roll call vote: The motion passed
unanimously, 6:0.
Councilor Brown adjourned the meeting at 7:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
,&;� J
Beth Forrest
City Recorder
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES— Eugene City Council April 16, 2012 Page 3
Public Hearing