Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

of the density calculation. Councilor Bettman could not support eroding density, and said the proposed provision was a step backwards. Code changes needed to benefit the community, not the developers. Mayor Piercy understood the City was attempting to be more transit-oriented and encourage people to live downtown, noting those downtown residents often owned vehicles. These competing factors needed to be part of the discussion, so that a thriving downtown area would be welcoming for people to live, work and play. She asked if encouraging people to put vehicles outside of the downtown core to foster a car-free environment had been considered. She asked if downtown residents paid less for their housing units if they did not require parking. Ms. Laurence argued the concept was to encourage downtown residents to park their vehicles downtown and take public transit or walk when possible. Likewise people from the community were encouraged to either take public transit to downtown, or drive to and park downtown and then walk or use public transit, as opposed to the suburban model in which people used their vehicles for every trip. It was a balance between facilitating development and holding onto our goals. The Lane Transit District (LTD) EmX Park and Ride had been successful for people who wished to park outside of downtown but travel to the downtown area. In residential development, people were looking for secure parking very close to where they lived. Ms. Laurence did not have information on whether housing developments charged less for units that did not include parking. Councilor Clark appreciated staff work on trying to strike a balanced approach. He was trying to understand the bigger picture of the historical perspective on actions that had occurred prior to his election to the council. He averred it was a goal of everyone to revitalize downtown and he saw this as a part of the effort to do what was necessary to make it possible. He asked how much redevelopment had occurred in the downtown core since the 2001 code amendments, and how much had occurred prior to that under different FAR conditions, to enable the council to take a reasonable look at the effect the changes had on actual redevelopment in the core. Ms. Laurence said the Planning Commission had the same question and staff was researching it. Staff had been working with a University of Oregon (University) economics class to track how the development pattern had changed as a result of the adoption of the Land Use Code Update (LUCU). She stated this was not the only indicator, noting other economic changes across the country, such as developer confidence and the cost of concrete. It was not fair to single out density as the only factor influencing redevelopment. Councilor Zelenka commented that development patterns were complex and it was difficult to isolate specific, individual factors. He liked the change from development site to lot. He was concerned that by removing the language that would allow basement areas to be calculated as part of the gross square footage of the building for the purposes of calculating FAR, basements designed and constructed as permanent office or retail use was contrary to increasing density. Ms. Laurence asked if including language that would indicate a basement could also be used for parking would be acceptable noting the initial thought was allowing basement parking to be included in the FAR calculation. She suggested including qualifiers for basement use since that would represent more efficient land use, adding that basement storage would mean it would not be needed on above ground floors. Councilor Zelenka concurred with the suggestion. Responding to Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Laurence said the intent in C-3 was to remove the limit on how many surface spaces were allowed, thus eliminating the need to have additional spaces in structured MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 4, 2008 Page 4 Work Session