Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Taylor asked why the City would want to exempt lots from the landscaping requirement. Ms. Bishow <br />responded that it was difficult to fit everything onto a smaller development site and make everything work. <br />Developers had more design options for larger sites, and typically could accommodate landscape <br />requirements more easily than on a small site. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson cited a redevelopment project on the southeast comer of Willamette Street and 18th Avenue <br />and noted here was no landscaping facing the street yet the building was quite attractive. Ms. Bishow said <br />that in the absence of a parking lot expansion, no landscaping standards were imposed. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson expressed disappointment that Albertsons had not taken advantage of its remodeling of its <br />store on 18th Avenue to make improvements to the parking lot. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked the origin of the figure in the code and in the motion. Ms. Childs responded that staff <br />looked to development of the original Transit Oriented overlay zone. At that time, staff had used the .65 <br />floor area ratio to see what was left on the lot. She suggested that the council's action to increase the floor <br />area ratio may obviate the issue to some degree. Mr. Meisner asked for an example of a downtown project on <br />a 22,000 square foot lot. Staff provided the quarter-block occupied by the Heron Building as an example of <br />a site slightly larger than 22,000 square feet. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he was persuaded to support the motion by the spreadsheets provided in testimony. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Rayor and Ms. Taylor voting no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to direct the City Manager to amend Map <br /> 9.6410(4)(a) Downtown and West University Automobile Parking Exempt Area to <br /> make the boundary the same as the outer boundary of Map 9.4530 Transit-Oriented <br /> Development Zoning Overlay. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked staffto discuss the consequences of passage of the motion. Ms. Childs said that the <br />Planning Commission had extensive discussion of the issue and opted not to make the boundaries co- <br />terminus because of concerns about the impact of that action on the existing residents from lack of parking. <br />Mr. Meisner noted that the Ad hoc Committee on Greater Downtown Visioning discussed the need to better <br />define the edges of downtown and had examined the area in question as a place where houses would not <br />necessarily be protected, but density would not be as dense as downtown. He said given the City's interest in <br />preserving the buffered ring of more dense housing around downtown while still preserving the character of <br />the neighborhood, he supported the commission's reasoning in not making the boundary change. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart supported the motion, pointing out that it did not preclude the provision of parking. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor opposed the motion because he believed it would put the City in the position of providing <br />subsidized parking and it would dilute downtown. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly was unaware that the commission had discussed the issue. He said that he would defer to the <br />commission's reasoning and vote against the motion. <br /> <br /> The motion failed, 6:1; Mr. Fart voting yes, and Ms. Nathanson being out of the room <br /> at the time the vote was taken. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 6, 2000 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />