Item 3: Ordinance on Downtown Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

pointed out that it could be referring to the economic climate of a few years earlier. He commented that it could be better to say that given testimony and experience with the cost of redeveloping land in downtown Eugene compared to market demand would be more specific to what the code amendments were responding to. Mr. Carroll asked Ms. Laurence to comment on the C-3 area in the west University area. Ms. Laurence explained that the only two areas of C-3, Commercial, zoning were in the downtown area th and in the West 13 Avenue and Kincaid Street area. She had looked for plan policies or discussion outside of the Downtown Plan that would address the changes they were looking at and had not found anything with enough specificity that they could be used to support or raise concerns with the code amendments. She noted that she had also found an issue with a portion of land that was outside of the downtown core and fell within the Jefferson/Far West Neighborhood on Willamette Street because of the changes in the /TD area. She said the only discussion in the Jefferson/Far West Plan referred to that area as the differentiation between the residential and commercial areas. It did not provide insight into the changes that were proposed. She related that the policies in the plan were so generally stated that even if they had addressed the kind of topic the Planning Commission was looking into they were not worded in such a way that they could constitute mandatory approval criteria. Mr. Carroll commented that the way the statewide goal findings for Goal 2 were written related to the amendments being fact-based seemed conclusory. He thought it would be better to mention the input from the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) and all of the testimony received including that of the developers and land-owners. He said it was important to stress how commercially zoned land outside the Transit Oriented District was being developed and land inside the district was not. Mr. McCown moved to recommend approval of the changes to the downtown code with adjustments to the findings and with the stipulation that the policies be reviewed in seven years. Mr. Lawless provided the second. Mr. McCown thought a seven year period was appropriate because that was the period of time that had elapsed since the Land Use Code Update (LUCU). He said while he strongly supported the values behind increased densities the City had found itself in a situation where it had not seen much MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 11