Laserfiche WebLink
asked if there was a way to ensure that buildings that were new with the exception of one wall <br />triggered the standards. Ms. Bishow said that issue was addressed in the new Land Use Code, <br />which referred to "building" as opposed to a "structure," and "building" as defined in the definitions <br />as a "structure designed and used as a place of occupancy, storage, or shelter." That might have <br />meant that The Meridian, an example of a project where the initial building was largely removed, <br />would have lost its status as a "building" under the new code definition. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested that the problem with Option 1 was that it attempted to define what a large <br />multi-tenant commercial facility was, and when the standards were triggered. He preferred to <br />separate the two concepts, and recommended that first "large multi-tenant commercial facility" be <br />defined as a development project with at least 50,000 square feet within three or more buildings on <br />a development site, but the standards would be triggered when a single new building over X <br />thousand square feet was constructed. Mr. Kelly said it seemed reasonable that the standards <br />would apply when, for example, a new 40,000 square foot building was added to an existing <br />shopping mall. Instead, the option indicated three buildings must be constructed to trigger the <br />standards, even when a major new anchor was being added to a shopping center that the standards <br />could reasonably be applied to. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks. She did not want to preclude triggering the <br />standards in the case of a major redevelopment or remodeling of such a shopping center. She <br />believed the difficulty would be addressed by including in the trigger that the standards apply to the <br />new construction only. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow cited the former Wards building in the Valley River Center as an example, and said if <br />the council wanted to ensure that renovation projects triggered the standards, she believed it would <br />be very difficult in such a situation to create a shopping street, address on-site vehicular <br />circulation, etc. She thought the standards were designed for new development, and would be <br />difficult to apply to the renovation of an existing building. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Bishow said that the standards would be <br />triggered, for example, on a five- to ten-acre site with three buildings of any arrangement that had <br />a total of 50,000 square feet. She said the large multi-tenant standards were not suitable for <br />already developed sites, and suggested that there may be other standards for redevelopment <br />projects associated with nodal development. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked why the trigger was three buildings rather than two. Ms. Bishow said that the <br />commission discussed likely development outcomes, and concluded that two buildings did not <br />seem to be significant enought to cause a trigger. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend Option 1 by <br /> stipulating that two buildings would be the trigger for the multi-tenant <br /> commercial standards. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />