Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner reminded the council the discussion was about nodes, where more dense <br />development was desired. He said that the council needed to balance the issues involved. He <br />acknowledged the potential for a problem but believed that it could be avoided when the nodes <br />were mapped. If a specific exception arose in the interim, he thought the council could find a <br />way to address it. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart expressed support for the motion because he believed it provided some flexibility and <br />because he perceived it could be a mechanism for lowering the cost of housing. He said that <br />second storeys might be developed as rental housing. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman also supported the motion as she thought FAR was key to nodal development. Ms. <br />Taylor concurred. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to direct the City Manager to <br /> require a conditional use permit for any new parking areas in C-2 that are not <br /> directly tied to a specific development. Include as conditional use permit <br /> approval criteria consideration of whether there is a need for parking in the <br /> area. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly explained that parking area was defined in the code as a standalone tax lot that was <br />nothing but a parking lot, and his intent was to preclude commercial land from being developed <br />as parking. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart asked about the effect of the motion on temporary event parking. Ms. Bishow did not <br />think there would be an effect for parking that was truly temporary. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow noted that the motion would require a conditional use permit (CUP) for a use that, by <br />its nature, did not warrant a public review. She said that clear landscaping and drainage <br />standards, for example, are required for such developments to address compatibility. Ms. <br />Bishow said that prior to parking lot standards being put into the code, the City experienced some <br />interim parking lots being created partially because their establishment could be done with <br />minimal cost. With current parking lot standards, creation of such lots were less of a problem. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Bishow said that the motion would address <br />situations where an entire site was used for parking without any direct linkage to a commercial <br />enterprise or other use. She said that the unintended consequence of the motion was the staff <br />time needed to review parking areas through the CUP process with the purpose of actually <br />discouraging the use. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor noted that he had voted to oppose structured parking in C-3 districts because the City <br />was now the sole provider of parking in downtown and maintained artificially Iow prices. Other <br />providers could not make a profit because of the City's Iow parking prices. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he chose the CUP process because that was the only review mechanism he was <br />aware of. He asked for staff suggestions for an review process shod of the CUP process. Ms. <br />Childs asked if Mr. Kelly was seeking a process with a public hearing. Mr. Kelly said no. Ms. <br />Bishow recommended the site review process. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Meisner agreed to substitute <br />"site review" for "conditional use permit process" in the motion. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2000 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />