Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman pointed out that the higher the trigger, the less development the standards would be <br />applied to. She said that the council was talking about a limited amount of development, and she <br />wanted the standards to apply because of the ultimate benefit to the community. She said that two <br />buildings as a trigger was a compromise. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr was not comfortable revising the commission's recommendation without more <br />understanding of its reasoning. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Bishow said that the illustrations used to depict <br />such centers before the commission typically had five to seven buildings, and three buildings <br />seemed to be the minimum number that created a sense of place, and had the capability of creating <br />a shopping street. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked how the City would address a development where the developer submitted one <br />building plan at a time for a multi-phased project, and ifa developer could avoid the application of <br />the standards by staging construction. Ms. Bishow said if a development was not subject to a land <br />use application that required them to show full build-out, it was possible that approach could be <br />used to avoid the standards. She noted that there were efficiencies realized by developers in doing <br />a master plan for an entire site. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson supported the commission recommendation. She said that it seemed the council <br />was attempting to influence something beyond its control to some degree. She thought the <br />analysis before the council was missing an understanding of the relationship between the trigger <br />and its relationship to what else was located on the development site and the size of the <br />development site. Ms. Nathanson said that three buildings that completely fill a development site <br />was different than the first three buildings on a linear parcel with more developable space, which <br />was also different from a development on a more square parcel. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thought Ms. Nathanson made a good point, although he intended to support the <br />amendment as a compromise. He suggested that the Planning Commission recommendation could <br />be interpreted to allow the construction of two buildings in the Valley River Center parking lot <br />totaling 60,000 square feet without triggering the standards, and that could be the first phase of a <br />very different center over time. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked about possible negative results of reducing the number to one or two. Ms. <br />Bishow responded that the standards address the concept of achieving a more urban commercial <br />center. She said that some of the standards did not seem workable with one building, such as the <br />creation of a shopping street. Ms. Taylor asked if there were negative effects changing the trigger <br />to two. Ms. Bishow said there would be higher costs and site constraints for the developer, and <br />the impact might be a delay in construction or a decision to drop the project. Ms. Childs added <br />that the Planning Commission did not, in its discussion of issue, reconsider the number of buildings <br />involved, as commissioners believed that required more substantive discussion than was merited by <br />the minor code amendments process. She suggested that the council could consider making the <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />