Item 3: Ordinance on Downtown Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

written. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. II. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION: DOWNTOWN CODE AMENDMENTS Ms. Laurence recapped the public testimony and the comments received. She related that they had received testimony in support of the code amendments, testimony in support of the code amendments that had specific questions such as on the lot or development site, testimony in support of downtown density, and questions about the impact of the proposed code amendments on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions. Regarding specific issues on lot versus development site, she stated that the initial code language had proposed to base Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on lot or development site. She reported that questions and comments had come in that indicated that offering this choice added confusion to the code. She said based on advice from the City Attorney the language had been changed to only ‘lot.’ She explained that this had to do with the language used in the rest of the code and the legal definition of lot. She stressed that the focus lay on trying to address certain areas of the code in the present without adding to confusion or contradictions elsewhere in the code. Regarding the VMT, Ms. Laurence stated that the goal of the project was to encourage downtown density where there were already services in place and to address a park once concept. She felt that the only way to get to the desired VMT and the park once concept was to get to a greater level of density and mixed use. She said at the heart of this project was a question of whether reducing the density required would increase the VMT or greenhouse gases. She stated that this was a question for Planning Commissioners. She noted that research indicated that the density was too high to be workable so the City was not seeing the developments coming through that it wanted in the downtown. She conveyed staff’s hope that reducing density outside of the downtown core area from a 1.0 to a .65 FAR would make it easier for development to happen in the area and this would make for a more dense and walkable downtown. Ms. Laurence said, in responding to questions about Phase 2 of the code amendments, they hoped to start on the four items the council had asked the commission and staff to consider when initiating the project: bicycle parking requirements, boundaries for downtown-related codes and regulations, MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 2