Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Ms. Bishow did not think the provision would be used <br />frequently because businesses preferred to have more off-street parking than there was demand <br />for. She said that there could be some neighborhood on-street parking impacts depending on the <br />scale of development, or an impact on nearby business parking. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs clarified that the motion would not preclude the construction of off-street parking. She <br />agreed with a statement from Mr. Farr that the City would be providing business with more <br />options. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked what would happen if the use in question changed to a more intense C-2 use <br />without a change in the building. In the absence of a business licensing program, was there a <br />way to trigger a requirement for additional parking? Mike McKerrow of the Planning and <br />Development Department said there was no process that triggered a requirement for additional <br />parking if no permits were being sought. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked for information about the provision in the update (Table 9.6410) that indicated a <br />parking reduction of up to 25 percent of the minimum requirement was allowed as a right of <br />development. Ms. Bishow termed it an innovative tool the City was using to encourage property <br />owners to construct less parking than the required minimum. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said he would oppose the motion because C-2 development sites were typically three <br />to five acres in size, as opposed to C-1, which was smaller in size and served a more local area. <br />He thought parking turnover was higher for C-1 uses than for C-2 uses and potentially had less <br />neighborhood impact. Mr. Rayor had a difficult time contemplating how the motion would be <br />implemented in shopping centers, such as Oakway Mall, with many stores in a C-2 zone. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that the Oakway Mall was a good example. A new use in that mall's parking lot <br />could share parking with the existing uses, as long as those uses were willing. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson distinguished between a business located in a consolidated development and a <br />business in a street-front situation. In the case of the consolidated development, parking was <br />shared parking through a business arrangement. She suggested that what was flexibility in the <br />eyes of one owner could be unauthorized use of a parking lot in the eyes of another business <br />owner. Ms. Nathanson was concerned that the motion could lead to business-to-business <br />disputes. <br /> <br />Responding to Ms. Bishow's suggestion that the provision would likely be used infrequently, Ms. <br />Nathanson envisioned a situation where a start-up business on a tight budget would attempt to <br />find a way to locate customer parking without incurring the expense of constructing parking. <br /> <br /> The motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Farr voting yes. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend Section 4.290(3) of the \ND Nodal Development overlay zone and <br /> Section 9.4530(6) of the \TD Transit Oriented overlay zone, to increase from <br /> 40 percent to 60 percent the amount of the site frontage abutting the street <br /> that must be occupied by a building in order for parking to be located at the <br /> rear or sides of the building. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />