Item 3: Ordinance on Downtown Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

downtown development in years. He underscored that having no development meant there had been no increase in density. He hoped that by reducing the density minimums the City would realize an increase in development that would thereby increase densities. He felt adding the seven year caveat would provide an opportunity to conduct planning in a manner wherein the values were based in facts such as how the VMT had been affected by the changes. Mr. Carroll supported the concept but felt seven years was too arbitrary of a number. When he thought of what happened since the LUCU it seemed to him that what they should revisit would be the refinement plans. He indicated he would support sending a recommendation to the council that given the plans for Phase 2 and the aging Downtown Plan that the Planning Commission would keep it as a top priority for its work plan. Mr. Lawless saw this recommendation as a jumpstart for heading in a direction that would stimulate development. He agreed that some development would be densifying and having no development meant no densification. He preferred to exclude the seven year timeframe from the motion, but hoped the commission would agree to forward a sidebar recommendation to council to grapple with looking at the progress on a fact basis at an appropriate time down the road. Mr. Duncan concurred. He averred that it would be self-evident if the changes would work as development would occur where it was currently not occurring. He agreed that it seemed that changes were sometimes based on the faith that they would work and were not revisited, but he was not certain that including a specific timeframe would work. Ms. Kneeland opposed the recommended changes to the amendments. She agreed and hoped that they would find a way to encourage density in Eugene. She thought the amendments were based on an idea that no development equaled no increase in density and so the restrictiveness of the codes should be reduced to allow some development even though it would not be at the density measurements that were desired. She felt this was an “appealing premise.” She acknowledged the testimony from the development community, which supported this idea, but averred that the city government had a responsibility that was larger than private development interests. She felt the City had to look at climate change and the future of the city and the state in a larger social context. She was not satisfied that the code amendments were taking the City in the direction that it needed to go. She hoped that her vote would be communicated to the council along with a request that MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 12