Laserfiche WebLink
had been extensively discussed. He felt that staff had been given clear directives regarding the <br />work load at this meeting. He asked how council could better provide direction. Ms. Childs <br />responded that, at the time of the July meeting, staff had felt that the deadlines were attainable. <br /> <br />Speaking to Ordinance 2, Mr. Kelly felt that the code language did not support the italics on page <br />38 that addressed the amendment to the density that allowed for the adjustment to higher <br />minimum density requirements. Ms. Childs referenced the purpose statement, and explained that <br />the intent was that each node identified by the/ND Overlay Zone should achieve an average <br />overall residential density of 12 units per net residential acre. She related that the criterion for an <br />adjustment was conformance with the purpose statement. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that she had concern that existing buildings should be treated the same as new <br />development, but she felt that there was not sufficient time to address this concern. She pointed <br />out that the Planning and Development Department has added its own items to the work program. <br />She felt that there was funding for the addition of one more planner and that this would be an <br />important position to fund, given the work load. She noted that $2.5 million had just been put into <br />the Facilities Reserve. <br /> <br />Continuing, Ms. Bettman related that Rick Duncan, an applicant to the Planning Commission, had <br />commented that the minimization of the setback requirements was being moved forward without <br />any design standards to guide it. She said she was not opposed to allowing flexibility of the siting <br />of a building on a flag lot if there were other criteria to require that it be compatible with <br />surrounding buildings. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor spoke in support of density in new development, adding that she felt that denser <br />development could be promoted without harming the older neighborhoods in the City. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow explained, in response to a question from Ms. Taylor, that the R-1 zone allowed for <br />non-residential uses in addition to single-family dwellings. She said that it protected property <br />owners from having an industrial use move in next door, but would not stop five unrelated adults <br />from living together and parking five cars in front of the neighboring dwelling. The Land Use Code <br />was only one method of protecting neighborhoods and promoting livability. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs clarified that the requirement related to owner-occupancy being recorded had been <br />pulled out of Ordinance 1 and added to Ordinance 3 as it was related to secondary dwellings. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked if the density requirements in the/ND overlay zone would allow much R-1 zoning. <br />Ms. Childs responded that each node would have a variety of zones. She stated that there is no <br />proposal to reduce the density in that area. She noted that within the Chase Gardens sub-area as <br />defined by the Willakenzie Plan, there is an R-1 area. Ms. Childs noted that there was a work <br />session scheduled for council to address specific questions to staff regarding the Chase Gardens <br />nodal development area to be held on the following Monday, October 28. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart commented that citizens that want nodal development should also welcome it in their own <br />neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stressed the importance of including in the language regarding secondary dwellings <br />that one dwelling must always be occupied by the owner of the property. She felt that this was not <br />a clear requirement should the sale of the property occur. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2002 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />