Laserfiche WebLink
be able to make a case as to why a requirement for two-story retail development could not be met <br />that had not already been discussed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fart, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to extend item by ten minutes. The <br /> motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart observed that where he grew up in Sheffield, England, two-story retail was the norm. <br />However, he was concerned about imposing the requirement on the area. He expressed <br />appreciation for Ms. Nathanson's remarks, but pointed out that within a shod bicycle ride of the <br />node in question there was a failed shopping center. He was worried that the requirement would <br />result in another failed commercial area. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said there was little to distinguish what was being proposed from any other suburban <br />shopping center, and the requirements in the plan represented the last compromised attempt at <br />creating a node. She said that the City would be providing a subsidy to developers in the node, <br />and she questioned why it would want to do so when the development being proposed was the <br />same that was being built in other areas of the city. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly believed that the Planning Commission had already incorporated flexibility into the plan <br />by focusing the two-story construction along Garden Way only. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Fart, and Mr. Pap~ voting no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to approve the Planning <br /> Commission recommendation to require individual entrances to businesses <br /> abutting March Chase and Garden Way. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly believed the requirement was needed to enhance pedestrian access to the businesses <br />in the node. He said that there were many places across the country where businesses were <br />located on the street and parking was in the back, and visitors had to walk from the back of the <br />building around to the front entrance. He did not consider that to be a hardship. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked Mr. Yeiter if reducing the areas in which street-facing entrances were <br />required would remove the intent of how a node operated. Mr. Yeiter said that it might matter <br />more in this node because of the location of the apartments. He said that the Planning <br />Commission was adamant about the requirement. It was hard to judge, without requiring site <br />review, what other building types might satisfy the intent of the requirement. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor supported the motion because it facilitated access by pedestrians and bicyclists. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said he assumed that the motion did not provide for the flexibility of a central building <br />corridor through which businesses were accessed. Mr. Yeiter said that it did not. Mr. Pap~ <br />opposed the motion, saying the City needed to provide more flexibility to the developers. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Fart, and Mr. Pap~ voting no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to approve the Planning <br /> Commission recommendation to prohibit drive-through facilities in the Chase <br /> Node. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />