Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Responding to a question from Councilor Taylor, Ms. Laurence said Planning Commissioner Anne Kneeland voted against the proposed changes because she was concerned that reducing the floor area ratio (FAR) in the area outside of the core from 1.0 to .65 would have two negative effects: the types of buildings built would no longer be of a size that met assumptions about the number of employees in the Downtown Plan area, and the environment would be impacted by additional cars that might be driving downtown. Other Planning Commissioners shared those concerns but there was testimony at the public hearing from a member of the Sustainability Commission that brought up the point that trips to downtown and people parking downtown actually reduced trips around the community, noting density downtown was a part of our sustainability goals. One commissioner was concerned specifically about the employment issue. Councilor Taylor liked the idea of allowing housing on the first floor. Councilor Bettman recalled that when the council adopted the 20-space limit and FAR in 2001 following public hearings and council debate, it was determined these changes met the objectives of the City and the Growth Management Policies (GMPs). Reducing the FAR in the downtown core was counter to City policies. Some requirements allowed for flexibility and discretionary review including basement and underground parking that also diluted density. Creating less of a FAR and allowing for surface parking would lead to more suburban development in the urban core where half of the lot was surface parking. Referring to C-2, Councilor Solomon said this issue arose at the Housing Policy Board (HPB) on which th she served as a City Council representative. The issue came up at the HPB regarding WestTown on 8. Inclusion of commercial requirements on the ground floor made the project more difficult. As a result, live- work units had been integrated making the project more difficult. Of the nine live-work units, one had been sold. She was happy to see the proposed changes. Responding to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Laurence said the minutes that included the Planning Commission discussion on this issue were not yet available. She would provide them as soon as possible. In response to Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Laurence said any qualifiers about basements had been removed in response to public feedback. The expense of developing a basement should be reflected in some easing in the regulatory process because using a basement was a more efficient use of land, especially in the downtown core area, when looking for density and multiple stories. Citing examples where parking was imbedded in the building’s footprint, Ms. Laurence said Broadway Place had commercial uses on Broadway in which parking accessible from Charnelton Street, was hidden from view. The Jean Tate Building had parking under the building as well as surface parking. Parking in those examples had been counted as part of the density of the building, but the code was confusing and the goal was to clarify that provision. She offered a definition of structured parking as one or more tiers of parking within the building’s footprint, adding adjacent surface parking was not part of that definition. Councilor Bettman supported removal of the requirement that residential and C-2 had to have commercial use on the ground floor. Responding to her question of what was the difference between the terms development site and lot, Ms. Laurence said there were examples in which development had benefitted and in which development might be more difficult. The public input strongly supported the change. She explained that if a developer wanted to construct a building that sat on two adjacent lots, a bigger building would be required to meet the density standards. If a developer built on one lot, only that lot would be part MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 4, 2008 Page 3 Work Session