Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly observed that he liked the clarity of the FOE text regarding transit stops. Referring to the last <br />bullet in the May 1999 draft TransPlan, A mix of housing types and residential densities that achieve an <br />overall net density of at least 12 units per net acre, Mr. Kelly said it was his understanding that the ratio <br />would be about 9 units per gross acre, which he believed at a minimum was "awfully flimsy" in terms of <br />making transit and alternative modes effective. Saying he had no "magic" number, Mr. Kelly suggested the <br />minimum be revised to be 12 units per gross acre, which would achieve what the Metropolitan Plan identified <br />as medium-density residential development. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner believed the May 1999 draft text was more clear than the FOE definition, particularly in regard <br />to the characteristic of a transit stop. He requested an example of a local area that might be considered a <br />node, with mixed-uses and average net density at net 12 units per net acre. Ms. Childs said that she would <br />show the council some examples when it discussed implementation of TransPlan. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Lee, Ms. Childs said that the figure of 12 units per net acre was derived <br />from the Transportation Planning Rule definition of mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly center or neighborhood, <br />which was a statewide minimum definition. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr requested information about lot size at a density of 12 units per net acre. Ms. Childs said that it was <br />just under 4,000 square feet if the development was all single-family housing. She concurred with Mr. Farr <br />that was a small lot. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor disliked that the definition did not specify how much housing needed to be in a node. If a 100-acre <br />node had ten residents on one acre, the definition made no sense. For that reason, he was concerned about the <br />focus on commercial and employment centers. Ms. Childs noted that item 3 on page 3 of her memorandum <br />addressed a suggestion that the portion of the definition describing neighborhood, commercial, and <br />employment centers be deleted. Those descriptions attempted to provide a range of percentages for the <br />proportions of housing and housing types in a node. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if Valley River Center would still be considered a node. Ms. Childs said the council would <br />make that decision when it discussed implementation of specific nodal areas. She concurred with Ms. Taylor <br />that the center was currently a shopping center but indicated there was a potential for infill of a mixture of <br />uses within the center. Ms. Taylor asked if a mixture of housing would result in some lots being larger than <br />4,000. Ms. Childs said yes, adding she would assume a mixture of single-family and multi-family units in a <br />node. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said Mr. Rayor's point was a good one, and given his experience working with neighbors on the <br />Whiteaker Plan, he also questioned how the City could mandate that housing opportunities were preserved in <br />nodes. Ms. Childs said that the mixed-use zones envisioned in TransPlan were more prescriptive in nature <br />than the mixed-use zones in Whiteaker. Mr. Meisner endorsed that approach. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr suggested that the current housing codes must be revised to accommodate the densities envisioned in <br />TransPlan. To achieve housing affordability the City must consider other housing types, such as row houses, <br />houses without garages, etc. He acknowledged stafPs work in moving in that direction. However, he did not <br />think that the City could achieve the proposed density and still have affordable housing. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2000 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />