Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pap~ repeated Mr. Meisner's question about where the five acres would come from. Mr. Yeiter <br />speculated that it would be removed from the easternmost part of the node, and the remaining <br />commercial acreage would be clustered around Garden Way. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said that the node needed a critical mass to attract development. He was concerned that <br />five acres was too small. He did not think that the testimony offered to the council about the size <br />of the node if adopted was accurate as he recalled another development that more than doubled <br />that size. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman pointed out that the Wiley property would also be developed with commercial uses <br />because of its mixed-use zoning. Reducing the size of the acreage in question did not remove the <br />commercial potential of that area. Reducing the size to five acres would help achieve the intensity <br />and density of use the City was seeking. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson indicated she would support the commission recommendation for nine acres. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly acknowledged the commercial potential of the mixed use area and clarified its 2,500 sq. <br />ft. maximum size for individual commercial tenants with Mr. Yeiter. <br /> <br /> The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Fart, Mr. Kelly, and <br /> Mr. Pap~ voting no, and Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Meisner, Mr. Rayor <br /> voting yes. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition to the amendment, and <br /> the amendment failed on a final vote of 5:4. <br /> <br /> The main motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Rayor, and Ms. Bettman voting <br /> no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to approve the Planning <br /> Commission recommendation to require two functional floors in buildings <br /> abutting the Garden Way pedestrian-oriented commercial core. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly pointed out the limited area to which the requirement would apply. He said that national <br />research indicated that two-floor construction was one of the key design elements in nodal <br />development. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ referred to testimony the council received stating that development of the single-story <br />space would occur first, and the second story development would not occur for some time. In <br />addition, testimony suggested that the requirement could result in lesser quality construction than <br />the City would like to see. He favored facades of a certain height, but did not want to require <br />second storeys due to the expense. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that a two-story facade did not achieve any of the intended purposes of the <br />node. It was merely a design element. However, she wanted to provide for design flexibility. She <br />asked how the City could best do that. She was not sympathetic to the assertion that "no one <br />likes it, and it will never happen." She had traveled to other cities where it did happen. It might <br />not be happening in Eugene now, but she wanted to nudge the community in that direction and <br />see if it could happen. She asked Mr. Yeiter for a recommendation on how she could accomplish <br />her goals. Mr. Yeiter suggested that the City could not require so many buildings to be two-story. <br />Certain key buildings at the intersection could be made two-story. Mr. Yeiter added that the City <br />also had a standards adjustment review process. However, he did not think the developer would <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />