Item 3: Ordinance on Downtown Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

Mr. Hledik asked if the Phase 2 code amendments were on the Planning and Development Department (PDD) workplan for the next year. Ms. Laurence affirmed that it was on her workplan. Mr. Nystrom noted that the PDD did not have a formal workplan. Mr. Hledik asked how this would dovetail with the Planning Commission work. Mr. Nystrom responded that he saw it being identified in workplan discussions in regard to the commission. Mr. McCown asked if the review piece was formalized whether it would be more useful to codify it or to include it in the recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Nystrom responded that it should be part of the recommendation. In response to a question from Ms. Kneeland, Ms. Laurence explained that the PDD had tracked impacts through the land use code and permit tracking system but was not able to produce statistics in time for the present meeting. It seemed to her that a way to track the impact of these changes would be at some point in the future to look at what building permits had happened. She said while building permits were one way to track it, land values were another way because as regulations impacted build-ability land values were also impacted. She wanted to go forward with the review of those statistics and the study the economics students were producing and provide the results during the Phase 2 review. She added that tracking the impact of more comprehensive changes would better get at an answer on what affect the amendments would have. She underscored that there were other elements, such as the cost of materials and world economic implications, affecting development in the downtown area. Ms. Kneeland felt that looking at building permit statistics was akin to saying the codes were the problem. Ms. Laurence responded that it was not possible to get at all of the data and some of it was within local control and some was not. She said the portion that was within local control had to do with code regulations. She understood based on what they heard from the community and based on the evidence of projects coming forward or being built outside the core was that there were either actual or perceived difficulties with using the code regulations in the core. She underscored that this was what the project intended to address. She said the emphasis was on addressing it in minor ways in the hope that tweaking the code would produce results. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 8