Laserfiche WebLink
Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Gary McNeel of Public Works Transportation said that the <br />minimum width for two-way multi-use paths was 10 feet. Bollards could be installed to prevent daily traffic. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the motion, pointing out that it provided for exemptions in certain cases. Responding <br />to a question from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Bishow confirmed that the motion would not be applicable to streets <br />that would ultimately be connected when the intervening vacant land developed. Hammerheads and other <br />type of dead-end situations would be covered by the motion. Responding to a question from Mr. Fart, Ms. <br />Childs said that the motion would also not apply to circle streets with a single egress/ingress. Ms. Bishow <br />said that staff would review the code language if the council approved the motion to be sure that the City was <br />not requiring unnecessary connections. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Childs said she did not think the motion would have an <br />impact on the City's street connectivity standards. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 8:0 <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to direct the City Manager to change the <br /> /TD Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone to adjust the Floor Area Ratio to a <br /> number that would likely result in new development being at least two stories. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that it made no sense to him that new development in a transit-oriented area or node be single- <br />story. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Childs clarified the current draft floor area ratios in the <br />draft code. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Fart voting no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to direct the City Manager to change the code <br /> to exempt lots with a/TD overlay zone that are less than 22,000 square feet from being <br /> required to provide landscaping between a surface parking area and the interior lot line. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that his motion was intended to address testimony regarding local lot sizes and double-lot <br />development that exceeded the current draft code minimum. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked how many lots were involved. He said that the difference between the current minimum of <br />20,000 and 22,000 was not very significant, but both were about one-half acre. He was concerned that the <br />City was now increasing the number of lots exempt from the landscaping requirements. Ms. Bishow said that <br />the testimony was somewhat valid, but there was no single dominant lot size in the downtown/TD area. <br />There were some lots that would be exempted from the interior parking lot landscaping requirements if the <br />minimum size was increased. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that she was concerned about the consequences of the motion on redevelopment and <br />infill. She wanted to support compact development forms, increased activity, and increased density where <br />appropriate, and did not want to enact regulations that discouraged those things from occurring. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 6, 2000 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />