Item 3: Ordinance on Downtown Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

conduct business. The travel time between downtown and other areas of the City was typically less for most residents than between somewhere in the City and the outskirts of the City. He preferred to have people conduct their business downtown than on the outskirts. When the downtown was big and bustling in the future, it would be appropriate to cut back on car spaces to build more buildings. Relaxing some of the requirements to encourage development downtown was a necessary step forward. Terry Connolly , 1401 Willamette Street, spoke on behalf of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce. He thanked the Commissioners for the opportunity comment on the proposed code amendments. The Chamber appreciated how staff and the Commission had separated the code amendments into Phase One and Phase Two processes. The Chamber supported the proposed code amendments for Phase One. The Chamber believed individually and collectively each of the proposed amendments would remove some of the barriers that had stood in the way of attracting new investment, new projects and potential new development into downtown Eugene. Individually and collectively, the Chamber believed the proposed amendments would be a step in the right direction for the City of Eugene to take with respect to achieving an economically vibrant downtown, featuring a diverse mix of uses that were envisioned in the Downtown Plan. Current code requirements such as the 1.0 FAR or the 20 space maximum limit on parking while well intended when first enacted in 2001 had had unintended consequences as evident of seven years little private sector development activity in downtown compared to elsewhere in the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area, where similar code mandates did not exist. The Chamber believed the proposed code amendments were more in line with the basic economic and market conditions and/or limitations for a city the size of Eugene. Furthermore, allowing adjustment review for all parcels and properties was a good thing. With respect to the response the Planning Commission needed to make to Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), that agency should be supportive of these code amendments. The current code was obviously not lending itself to achieving the type of compact urban development DLCD desired cities in Oregon to aspire to. The Chamber believed this was an important opportunity for the City of Eugene and urged the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that these code amendments be adopted. They were one step in the right direction for downtown, one step of many incremental steps that would enhance what is already good about downtown while also fostering revitalization. He thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their efforts in outreach to the community in this process. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 15, 2008 Page 4