Laserfiche WebLink
suggested the council consider an exchange of objectives; for example, if a developer met a <br />certain objective the City would relax the percentage of required landscaping. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor expressed concern that the motion could be interpreted as allowing more hard surface <br />as part of the landscaping, creating more impervious surfaces. Mr. Kelly said it was not his intent <br />to allow 100 percent of the area in question to be hardscaped. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked if the proposed percentage in the draft code was a problem for all commercial <br />sites in all zones and if it related to the size of the site: was it a problem for just small sites or for <br />all sites. Ms. Bishow clarified that in general, the landscape standard would mean that smaller <br />sites had less design flexibility, while larger sites could likely meet the 15 percent requirement <br />more readily. Mr. Meisner questioned whether the City wanted to reduce the landscape <br />requirement for larger commercial developments. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow said that staff would interpret the motion as direction to staff to reduce the landscape <br />requirement to ensure that positive developments could proceed without a significant barrier. <br />Staff would examine the code to determine whether the landscape requirement should be <br />reduced on large sites, or changed just for small sites. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Bishow said there was no minimum landscape <br />area required in the C-3 zone, and the motion would not affect the C-3 zone. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he would like to encourage more use of the planting strip as a landscaped area, <br />which he thought would improve the quality of commercial street scape. He thought it would be <br />a good idea for staff to consider lot size as it revised the code. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman suggested that the motion be amended to refer to "permeable hard surfaces." Mr. <br />Kelly said he would need some "real world" examples of how such materials worked in such <br />instances. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow suggested that Ms. Bettman's proposed change was directed at the need to carefully <br />define the landscape the City was trying to achieve, such as an area with living plant material <br />covering 70 percent or more of the space so it was not a rock garden or paved concrete area. <br />She indicated staff would address that concern in making the revisions to the code. Responding <br />to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap~ regarding how staff would address the issue of planter <br />boxes and green roofs, Ms. Bishow said that she would focus on the idea of creating a variety of <br />options for providing areas for living plants that add to the environment. She thought that the <br />code as revised in response to the discussion would permit a landscaping situation similar to that <br />around the Council Chamber. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> apply Section 9.2170(17)(c) Buildinq Entrances and Section 9.2170(17)(k)(3) <br /> Exterior Ground Floor Windows to all commercial developments. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman believed that some of the standards the City applied to larger commercial <br />developments were beneficial for smaller developments as well, and she thought the standard in <br />question was appropriately applied. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 30, 2000 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />