Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner did not think the situation was likely to arise very often because few developers were <br />inclined to use valuable land soley for commercial parking. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor determined that parking lots in C-2 zones must be improved, which was why the City <br />was seeing fewer of them. Ms. Bishow agreed. She added that there were still situations where <br />interim parking areas occurred on gravel lots and the City enforced the code on a complaint basis <br />in those cases. She agreed with Mr. Meisner that there was not as much a market or demand for <br />parking lots as a sole use. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs suggested that a criteria for the council to consider was whether a proposed lot was <br />for the purpose of providing shared parking. There was general council concurrence. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson questioned adding a criteria related to need, suggesting that if there was none <br />the lot would not be developed as parking, and if there was a need, why allow new surface <br />parking rather than requiring that parking be integrated with a structure. Mr. Meisner concurred. <br />He said that there was an implication in the notion of need that developers always base <br />development on need. He distinguished between developer profit need and public need. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart asked if the motion could affect Lane Transit District transfer stations. Ms. Bishow did <br />not think so as there was now transit related facilities actually listed in the code including one <br />entitled Park and Ride Lots. Such lots could be located on C-2 zones even if the motion was <br />passed. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman favored the motion because she felt there would be pressure for such surface <br />parking as densification occurred. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about the distinction between review methods, Ms. <br />Childs said that staff could develop a Type II review for parking lots in C-2 zones. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that said he did not care about the process used and suggested that staff make <br />a recommendation. Mr. Kelly agreed, saying that there was sufficient legislative intent to guide <br />staff. Mr. Meisner suggested that the specific review mechanism be dropped from the motion. <br />Ms. Childs concurred. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart asked if the motion ruled out the use of lots for temporary parking until development <br />occurred. Ms. Bishow said it did not rule out a temporary parking area from being established, <br />but the owner would still have to improve the parking lot to City standards, which might preclude <br />the use from an economic point of view. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said the intent of the next motion was to allow commercial uses in an R-2 zone without <br />the need for a planned unit development. He noted that he had heard concerns the motion could <br />take away housing stock. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to change the code to allow in <br /> the R-2 medium density residential zone any C-1 neighborhood commercial <br /> use if approved through a conditional use permit and if located within 200 <br /> feet of an intersection. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2000 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />