Laserfiche WebLink
that such lots should be prohibited unless it was shared parking. The commission did not want to tie up land <br />in all-day surface parking. Ms. Childs said that the commission had not explicitly discussed a situation where <br />there was a shared lot with high turnover. She said that if the motion passed, staff would want to look at <br />shared options that might be available. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner thought shared parking made sense. However, he questioned whether adding a small structure, <br />such as a restroom structure on a parking lot, would redefine that lot as not being totally surface parking. Ms. <br />Bishow said that there would need to be a primary use on the development site if the motion passed, and the <br />parking could be associated with that use in shared manner. Mr. Meisner said the use of the term "primary" <br />made sense to him. He said that nodes were not intended to accommodate regional shopping but were <br />intended to serve nearby residents, and parking was not needed if those residents walked or bicycled to the <br />commercial uses in the node. Mr. Meisner supported the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly clarified that the motion only applied to an entire development site. The required minim floor area <br />ratio would help avoid the potential situation cited by Mr. Meisner. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Bishow said that Mr. Kelly's motion would prohibit stand <br />alone parking lots on sites like the one across the street from City Hall. She said that in the absence of the <br />motion, a developer could build at whatever scale met the floor area ratio on the site, divide it from the <br />remainder of the property, and sell the remainder to a friend to develop as surface parking. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson thought the concept in the motion was good but difficult to implement. She expressed <br />concern about the use of the terms "primary" and "ancillary," and asked if those terms were defined by the <br />code. Ms. Childs said that Ms. Bishow used the term "primary" in this case to distinguish parking as a <br />primary use. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Rayor, Mr. Fart, Mr. Pap~ voting no. <br /> <br />Pointing to the amount of time that the review of the Land Use Code was anticipated to take, Mr. Kelly asked <br />that staff ensure that other items did not impinge on the time scheduled for council discussion. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart and Mr. Pap~ left the meeting. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to extend the meeting to 7:45 p.m. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked that the council be notified in advance if meetings were to be extended. Mr. Johnson said <br />that notice of the extended time was sent to the council the previous day. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 5:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor requested that staff provide the council with a brief paragraph regarding the implications of each <br />motion. Mr. Kelly said that staff could indicate what would happen or not happen if the motion was adopted. <br />He added that he had provided that information to the council in an e-mail message to the council in July, and <br />suggested that such communication be included in the packet. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 6, 2000 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />