Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nathanson said that the Planning Commission had considered the issue and agreed on 10 units per acre. <br />She asked about the net effect of the motion and what it achieved. Did an increase from 10 to 12 units <br />significantly change the range of options for building types that the community would expect to see? Ms. <br />Childs thought that the change might increase the range of building types because 12 units per acre called for <br />small lots and created opportunities for attached dwellings and clustering. She thought the motion was <br />consistent with the minimum lot sizes that the council would be considering in the future, particularly for R- 1. <br />She added that a change in those lot sizes would affect the implementation of the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson questioned whether the requirement for increased density would decrease the chances the <br />nodes were developed in a timely way. Ms. Bishow said that probably from the perspective of the Lane <br />County Homebuilders Association, it would. At the current time, most subdivisions were in the range of 6 to <br />8 units per acre, and developers struggled to get 10 units per acre as these were needed to account for tree <br />preservation, street connectivity, and other factors. She said that the Planning Commission agreed on 10 <br />units per acre as a density goal. Ms. Bishow said that 12 units per acre was an ambitious goal. However, it <br />was directly linked to the council's goals for urban growth. To maintain the urban growth boundary in place, <br />the city would need to achieve density where and how it could. Ms. Bishow pointed out that the code could <br />be revised if the density figure did not work. <br /> <br />Mr. Jacobson offered the council the example of Lakeshore Estates, where all solar setback requirements had <br />to be waived to accommodate a 1 O-unit per acre detached subdivision. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart referred to Avalon Village, which had a mix of housing types on very small lots. He did not want to <br />preclude such development. He said that developers were currently developing at more dense levels and he <br />believed that they would develop at as high a density as possible, and that would be at 12 units per acre or <br />higher in some cases. Mr. Farr opposed the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly understood that the issues under discussion were addressed by the Planning Commission but said <br />that his motions were a direct result of the testimony received by the elected officials. He said that resident <br />Larry Shaw, who had been involved in Metro's land use planning, had offered the density number in his <br />testimony. Mr. Kelly said that key to him was that the motion did not set a minimum density for R- 1 zones in <br />general, only R-1 zones inside nodes. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Kelly's comments. He said that he strongly got the sense from other <br />members of the council that there would be a reduction in density requirements in other areas. There would <br />be heavy pressure on the council to exempt existing neighborhoods from the proposed density requirements. <br />He was concerned that the council would defeat its density goals if it defeated the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr pointed out that the defeat of the prior motion did not preclude housing in nodes. He did not believe <br />that the future nodes would be predominantly oriented toward one use or another. He said that defeat of the <br />motion also did not preclude developers from developing at a level of 12 units per acre. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Kelly said that he proposed 12 units per acre because he <br />thought that the density was needed to support neighborhood commercial development. Ms. Childs clarified <br />that there was evidence that indicated 12 units per acre was the minimum density needed to support transit <br />service in a node; she thought that the number might need to be higher to make transit and commercial work. <br />Mr. Pap6 suggested that a mix of zoning types in a node would help push the density up and meet the density <br />target. Ms. Childs concurred, adding that the minimum density had been increased for the R-2, R-3, and R-4 <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 6, 2000 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />