Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Duncan asked if removing (d) under 9.4530 would redefine the total minimal floor area of the <br />buildings. Ms. Laurence responded that it was also in the definitions, indicating that within the <br />/TD zone the basement area “may” be included in the FAR calculation. Mr. Duncan ascertained <br />from Mr. Nystrom that the applicant would make the decision on whether the basement would be <br />included. <br /> <br />Mr. Lawless noted that under 9.2161, Special Use Limitations for Table 9.2160, the bottom <br />sentence indicated that residential dwellings were not required to use the ground floor of a structure <br />for “commercial or non-residential purposes.” He wondered if it would make more sense to say <br />“commercial or otherwise permitted purposes.” He felt that ‘non-residential’ left the range of uses <br />wide open. Ms. Laurence responded that she would check with the City Attorney regarding that <br />language, noting that they had tried to use the original code language to the greatest extent <br />possible. Mr. Lawless noted that a similar application of the language happened in the Table <br />9.2161. <br /> <br />Mr. Carroll said he was interested in the idea of requiring a demonstration by the applicant that <br />efforts would be made in the design to support future expansion, and in particular vertical <br />expansion. He acknowledged that if it were an outright requirement it would add to the cost of the <br />building. He wondered to what extent the greater cost would be a deterrent. He was willing to <br />consider something, given that an adjustment review was built into the process, on the order of <br />requiring an applicant to demonstrate why their project would become unfeasible if a future <br />allowance in the design was made. <br /> <br />Mr. Lawless observed that in his experience the pre-planning and investment for vertical expansion <br />was not a miniscule or marginal expense. He said one problem with it was that as codes and life <br />safety laws continued to escalate what someone might do right now in 20 or 30 years could be <br />worthless and ultimately could cause a project to be more expensive than before. Though he was a <br />fan of master planning and the demonstration of phasing, he was uncertain how that would play <br />into an approval or a design review. <br /> <br />Mr. Nystrom said the fundamental question was that the change in FAR was being proposed as a <br />permitted outright use. He thought determining whether the commission was comfortable with that <br />change was the starting point and then if they were not they should consider leaving the standard in <br />MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 9 <br /> <br />