Laserfiche WebLink
The council was joined for the item by Planning and Development Department Director Paul <br />Farmer, Planning Director Jan Childs, Project Manager Teresa Bishow, and City Attorney Emily <br />Jerome. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor requested that staff provide a brief impact assessment of each of the many motions <br />before the City Council. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to direct the City Manager to <br /> change the Nodal Development overlay zone to adjust the Floor Area Ratio to <br /> a number that would likely result in new development being at least two <br /> stories. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly explained that at the last meeting the council decided to adjust the Floor Area Ratio <br />(FAR) in the transit oriented development (TOD) overlay and this decision was similar. In the <br />current draft the ratio was only .4 to .65, resulting in a less intensive level of land use than he <br />desired. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs said that the difference between this motion and the motion related to the TOD, in the <br />TOD area the City was primarily dealing with commercial property. The Nodal Development (ND) <br />overlay zone also included industrially zoned areas, where a requirement for a two-storey <br />building could be problematic in some instances. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner acknowledged Ms. Childs' statement but said he was interested in more efficient use <br />of land and he believed that offices in industrial zones, for example, could be located on a <br />second floor. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked what uses would be expected on land zoned industrial with an ND overlay, and <br />what benefits would result. Ms. Childs responded that there may be instances where an already <br />developed area received the ND overlay zone and may have some manufacturing zoning <br />included in it; the likelihood of the redevelopment of that property in the time frame that the <br />interim zone could be applied was not strong. She was not thinking of campus industrial, but of <br />more typical industrial development. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked if the central Eugene industrial area near 11th Avenue and Garfield Street <br />was a potential candidate for the ND zone. Ms. Childs said it was a good example of a potential <br />area. Ms. Nathanson said that the City might look forward to redevelopment but not want to <br />apply anything that actually discouraged redevelopment. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said if he voted no on the motion it was because he did not understand its implications. <br />He asked if the motion meant that any land to which the ND zone was applied would have to <br />have a FAR of .65. Ms. Childs clarified that the motion did not institute a floor area ratio but <br />required new development to be at least two stories. The FAR may be different in some <br />instances. Mr. Kelly said that was not his intent to require all development to be two storeys. He <br />thought a FAR was an appropriate mechanism because it would provide for split level <br />development. Ms. Childs said that she interpreted the motion as stipulating that a portion of the <br />development site would be two storeys in height. Mr. Kelly said that was because of the FAR, <br />not because the code stipulated two storeys. He thought the distinction important because of the <br />additional flexibility created by the FAR. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2000 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />