Laserfiche WebLink
potentially more extensive changes to the code and would begin as soon as Phase One was <br />completed. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission was expected to deliberate on the proposed code amendments on April <br />28, 2008. A recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council and the Council would hold <br />a public hearing on June 16, 2008. <br /> <br />Ms. Laurence entered into the public record written testimony she had received from: <br /> 1. Jim Welsh, Eugene Association of REALTORS. <br /> 2. Phil Farrington, PeaceHealth Oregon Region. <br /> <br />Mr. Hledik noted there were no questions from Planning Commissioners. <br /> <br />Mr. Hledik called for testimony from those in favor of the proposed amendments. <br /> <br />Tom Slocum <br />, 1950 Graham Drive, congratulated the Planning Commission on taking up this <br />chore. He said the proposals were long overdue. He found overall this was a good step that would <br />allow facilitation of development in the downtown core area and the transit overlay district. He <br />was bothered by the terminology “or lot” language under the minimum FAR cumbersome to read. <br />He opined a change in the definition of either development site or lot would clarify the language. <br />He had testified against the 1.0 FAR when the current language was originally passed because <br />everyone compared Eugene with Portland, which was not realistic. He thought this was a good <br />overall step in making the proper changes and encouraged Commissioners to support the changes. <br /> <br />Will Shaver, <br /> 3846 Peppertree Drive, said he was the chair of the Sustainability Commission but <br />was representing himself and not the group this evening. He applauded the proposed changes to the <br />downtown code. He was saddened that the downtown was not as developed as it could be and <br />many of the code changes took a step in the right direction. Although the 1.0 FAR seemed like it is <br />trying to promote density and increased land use, which were good goals, the opposite had actually <br />occurred. The result was that builders were hesitant to build and density had stayed the same or <br />gone down. From a sustainability and environmental standpoint, adding cars to downtown may <br />seem like a bad thing. However, cars in the downtown meant they were not on the edge of town. <br />Those cars that came downtown were more likely to stay downtown during the day to work and <br />MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 15, 2008 Page 3 <br /> <br />