Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly explained that the motion was a result of testimony submitted by many different <br />individuals about confusion where the multi-family standards should apply. It was not desirable <br />that they apply in a mixed-use development with commercial below and residential above. The <br />motion clarified the issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner determined from Mr. Kelly that "living area" referred to that portion of a structure in <br />actual residential use. He asked if the consequence of the motion was that the nonresidential <br />use could expand without hindrance. Mr. Kelly confirmed that the nonresidential use could <br />expand and nothing would be triggered. Ms. Bishow said that her intent in drafting the motion <br />was to allow the expansion, for example, of a recreation center in an existing apartment complex <br />without triggering the standards. Mr. Meisner recommended that staff include "living area" in the <br />definitions. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner determined from Mr. Kelly that the motion also applied to nodes. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ indicated support for the motion. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend Section 9.5500(4)(b) to increase from 50 percent to 75 percent the <br /> site width that shall be occupied by a building(s) for lots of 100 feet in width <br /> or more. Also increase from 40 percent to 60 percent the site width that <br /> shall be occupied by a building(s) for lots with less than 100 feet in width. In <br /> calculating the available site widths for lots with less than 100 feet in width, <br /> deduct that area needed for the minimum driveway width if one is required. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said there was no reason for the percentages in the motion other than to make <br />development more restrictive. He did not think that any of the examples of good development <br />included in the meeting packet could satisfy the intent of the motion. Mr. Kelly pointed out that <br />the motion dealt with multi-family development. Mr. Rayor believed that the same principles <br />applied in terms of massing of the building on the lot. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked staff to comment on Mr. Rayor's points. He thought most of the examples offered <br />to the council meant the intent of the motion in terms of site width coverage. He asked if a site <br />had only one width, so on a corner lot the motion would only apply to one side of a building. Staff <br />indicated that was the case. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he understood Ms. Bettman's intent but believed the percentages were too <br />aggressive at this time. For that reason, he had prepared a substitute motion he would introduce <br />if the motion failed. He noted that he had grown up in a garden court apartment, which created a <br />nice pedestrian frontage and facilitated interaction between neighbors. He had not wanted to <br />rule such a development out. Responding to Mr. Rayor's points, Mr. Kelly said that the idea of <br />land use and zoning in general was to be restrictive. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow said that staff supported Mr. Kelly's approach because it was seeking places in the <br />code where there was consistency between the standards. Because Mr. Kelly's approach was <br />adopted for the \ND and \TD overlay zones, staff thought there was merit for using the same <br />standard for multi-family development. She thought that moving to a 75 percent site width was <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 2000 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />