Laserfiche WebLink
zones. She said that the higher target could be important if an area in the node was predominantly low- <br />density. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor supported the motion because she thought more density was needed to make nodes work and <br />because she supported exempting existing neighborhoods from the proposed density requirements. She also <br />thought it would result in a mix of housing types in a node. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart believed that Avalon Village, developed without such a minimum, realized an overall density that <br />was as high or higher than the proposed density of 10 units per acre. He said that developers were already <br />voluntarily building at higher densities. He also thought requiring 10 units per acre provided developers with <br />more flexibility than 12 units per acre. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly clarified that his motion would only be applicable to new development. He did not think Avalon <br />Village in its entirety achieved the proposed density of 10 units per acre. Mr. Jacobson concurred. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner emphasized Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding the applicability of the motion to new development. <br />He said that the nodes were the City's opportunity to achieve increased density. Mr. Meisner thought nodes <br />were intended to be a "different species" than other developments. He said that if the City did not achieve <br />density in the nodes, it would have to expand the urban growth boundary or force redevelopment on existing <br />neighborhoods. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Rayor, Mr. Pap~, Mr. Fart voting no. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to direct the City Manager to change the <br />Nodal Development overlay to allow an automatic 50 percent reduction in the required <br />number of off-street parking spaces. <br />Mr. Kelly noted that the current draft code allowed a 25 percent reduction in required off-street parking. He <br />said that increasing the allowed minimum required parking spaces reduction would also encourage shared <br />parking. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Fart, Ms. Childs clarified that the motion did not require the 50 percent <br />reduction. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Rayor voting no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct the City Manager to change the <br /> Nodal Development overlay zone to prohibit "parking areas" where an entire lot <br /> consists only of surface parking. Staff should explore allowing parking areas that <br /> explicitly serve multiple developments. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly explained that he wanted to include such a use in the list of prohibited uses. He said that he might <br />be willing to allow such uses if they served more than one development. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked if there was any reason to allow such parking. She thought that parking could be <br />provided as a first floor under a building and it could be public parking, not just employee and customer <br />parking. Ms. Childs responded that the commission had discussed the issue of parking in nodes at some <br />length, with an initial focus on whether park and ride lots should be allowed. The commission determined <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 6, 2000 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />