Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly said that he was supportive of the concept but concerned about the breadth of the <br />motion, which would apply to all commercial developments. He said that the City may not want <br />windows in some developments, citing blood banks, mortuaries, and veterinary offices as <br />possible examples. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested that the motion be amended by adding the phrase "whose uses are <br />compatible with such requirements." He said that staff could interpret the phrase by creating a <br />list of uses. <br /> <br />After determining that Mr. Kelly's amendment was specific to exterior ground floor windows only, <br />Ms. Bettman accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment to the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson agreed with Mr. Kelly that there were times when it might not be workable to have <br />windows in all commercial developments. She thought the value of ground floor windows was <br />lost when there were no people present to be seen at work or shopping; at that point they just <br />created variety in the exterior. Ms. Nathanson asked if the motion could be interpreted so that, <br />for example, a utility building would be required to have windows on the ground floor. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart asked if the motion would apply to general retail space, such as a hardware store. Ms. <br />Bishow said yes. Mr. Farr objected to its application in such instances, saying that many retail <br />establishments did not have enough interior wall space for displays. Adding windows removed <br />wall space. He said that a varied appearance was good but questioned whether any retailers <br />had been asked their thoughts about the subject. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow pointed out that windows could be either glass areas that allow one to see through to <br />the interior of the building or they could be display windows two to three feet in depth in which <br />merchandise could be displayed while retaining the interior wall space. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said that if the goal of requiring windows was to allow "people to see people" he did not <br />think that display windows accomplished that. They did remove retail space from inside of a <br />building. That could force a retailer to increase the footprint of a store to make up for lost display <br />space. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said in principle, he supported the motion. He understood the concerns that Ms. <br />Bettman had about such buildings, but he pointed out that uses change and could be a challenge <br />for staff to address. He said that some buildings were built "on spec," without a tenant, and the <br />use might not be known on construction. Mr. Meisner thought the requirement for windows was <br />more than defensible as he thought it was community building but he hoped there was some <br />flexibility to address the concerns raised by Mr. Fart. He pointed out to Mr. Fart that the City <br />Council was not talking about requiring the retrofitting of existing retail space. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman pointed out that the motion was not just intended to create an interesting pedestrian <br />street scape, but also served to create communication between those in the building and those <br />on street, and was a large contributing factor to safer streets. Buildings with window frontages <br />are a passive witness to what occurred on the street, and there was evidence such a design <br />approach inhibited illegal activities while increasing safety for pedestrians. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked if Eugene Police Department had been consulted about some of the <br />requirements the council was adding to the code to create more of an "eye on the street." He <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 30, 2000 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />