Item 3: Ordinance on Downtown Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

green building concepts, and design review. She noted that this was in addition to the changes going forward in Phase 1, C-2, C-3, and changes to the Transit-Oriented District (/TD) and FAR. She said full public participation would have to be engaged in Phase 2. She projected that Phase 2 would be comprised of significantly more involved comprehensive changes to the code, MetroPlan changes, and potentially a new zone for downtown as well as a new approval path. Mr. Hledik noted that staff had asked the Planning Commission to take action and had recommended approval of the ordinance. Mr. McCown asked if removing the original development language would lose the intent for more flexibility. Ms. Laurence responded that staff’s sense was that when using only the lot to calculate FAR the requirement would be less. This would mean it would be easier to meet that requirement. Mr. Duncan asked Ms. Laurence to provide an idea of how the word ‘lot’ was currently used in the code. Mr. McKerrow responded that from a building permit aspect when an applicant came in they had a generic view of the term ‘lot.’ He said for this standard they would look at the lots shown in a subdivision plat map or the tax assessor’s lot map. He stated that the proposed change in the ordinance would provide more flexibility for an applicant to develop one lot at a time, rather than including all lots that an applicant may own. Mr. Nystrom clarified that ‘lot’ referred to a legally created parcel. Ms. Kneeland wanted to follow up on the issue concerning employment raised by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). She said the letter seemed to suggest that the City needed to look at assessing the impact a reduction in FAR would have on employment targets. Ms. Laurence responded that staff felt, based on regulations they were bound by, that the City could not make a direct link in the way the letter from DLCD suggested they should. She said the City was not reducing density, it was reducing the amount of density that was required outside of the core. She stressed that the City of Eugene was not seeing the development coming through that would generate the level of employment that was desired and that the City shared the goal set forth by the DLCD. Ms. Kneeland asked if Ms. Laurence thought this should be addressed in the commission’s MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 3