CC Minutes - 10/16/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Rayor said that his amendment was intended to capture the intent of the council. He pointed out that councilors could move to strike any exceptions proposed by staff. The amendment to the motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Bishow said that 12 units per acre was the maximum density allowed, and she said an approach where the maximum and minimum were the same could create some interesting design problems. If the council wanted to occasionally tradeoff density for a large lot, she would recommend a different number. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by changing the overall density from 12 units to 9 units per acre. Mr. Rayor pointed out that the maximum for the R-1 zone was 14 units per acre, and he thought it might be impossible to get 12 units per acre given that figure was a net density and streets were not included. He thought it reasonable to have a single maximum, and he considered 9 units per acre to be fairly dense. Ms. Bettman said that every time the council talked about how density affected neighborhoods, councilors suggested that if the city did not densify the urban growth boundary would need to be expanded. She suggested that the other side of the equation was the maximum lot size. She believed that decreasing the density figure, added to the exceptions that would be included in the code, reduced the effectiveness of the proposed approach. Mr. Meisner thought the amendment was reasonable. He observed that whenever the council made an effort to stiffen City requirements, there was resistance on an case-by-case basis, and recommended that the council be conscious about the exceptions it approved and consider how they impacted the City's density goals and maintaining the urban growth boundary. The amendment to the motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. The main motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Due to the lack of time, the council deferred the remainder of the agenda to a later date. In terms of staff follow-up, Ms. Nathanson referred to motion 5, related to asset mapping, and asked if that was connected to other studies being conducted by the Planning and Development Department. She also indicated she would need more background on motions 6 and 7. Mr. Meisner noted that a substitute motion 4 would be considered at the next meeting. Mr. Kelly asked that Ms. Bettman's withdrawn motion 3 be amended to call for a future work program item related to single-family design standards and be added to the list of motions for future consideration. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 13 Work Session