Item 3: Ordinance on Downtown Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

that had been platted prior to 1963. He stressed the importance of being clear. Ms. Laurence responded that ‘lot’ had its own areas of complication and confusion. She said they were not changing or adding to them at this point; they were simply allowing a smaller area within contiguous ownership to be used. She underscored that the property owner would have to come forward and indicate it was a lot. She stated that the department did not typically verify legal lots as part of the land use or building permit actions, rather staff relied on the knowledge of the lot. She noted that one could typically see on a tax map what had been previously platted. Mr. Nystrom was not as concerned about downtown parcels, given how long ago most of the lots had been platted. He commented that they were almost the easiest lots to verify. Mr. McKerrow added that this had not been an issue for the permitting department. Mr. Duncan observed that the area in which they were discussing a reduction in FAR from 1.0 to .65 currently featured a density of approximately .25 FAR. He said changing it to .65 would potentially double or triple the current density. Mr. Carroll asked what the underlying idea was behind the adjustment of boundaries that would be considered in Phase 2. Ms. Laurence responded that there were seven or eight boundaries affecting downtown regulations and they do not coincide. She averred that they needed to review which boundaries made sense and then simplify the map. Mr. Carroll remarked that calling the MiCap process Phase 1 and Phase 2 might not be accurate. He felt what the commission was doing was considering some intermediate steps in certain areas of downtown. He thought that what the commission might do in this first step could be “wiped out” or significantly altered when it was completed. Ms. Laurence agreed that the Phase 1 changes could be considered intermediary measures. Mr. Carroll noted he had requested a discussion on the DLCD potential requirement for development to physically prepare for greater intensity of use in the future. He asked for staff’s thoughts on whether it was practical or feasible. Ms. Laurence responded that it was feasible but she was not certain whether it was practical. She said they had not yet conducted all of the analysis. She stated that as they progressed in Phase 2 they would be considering green building concepts and one concept was the future life of a structure. She posited that the more financial MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 5