CC Minutes - 10/11/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman explained that her intent was to increase the percentage of building frontage along the street and eliminate text allowing a portion of that frontage to be occupied by enhanced pedestrian space. Responding to a request for comment from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Bishow diagramed an example situation illustrating the impact of the motion on a development. She said that there would be more building along the site frontage and more parking in the rear. Mr. Fart believed the impact of the motion would be to make people less likely to install pedestrian enhancements along the abutting street. He asked for an example of where a building now occupied 40 percent of the site. Ms. Bishow said that typically, commercial buildings tended to occupy less than half the available site frontage because the parking area was usually in the front of the building. The motion was an effort to further transition the appearance of the street so that buildings were closer to the front. She said the council needed to decide whether to start incrementally as recommended by the commission, or move immediately to a full 60 percent frontage requirement. Mr. Kelly supported the philosophical intent behind the motion but had questions. For example, what did the phrase "abutting the street" mean? He pointed out that some developments had creative, angled frontages and asked if those frontages would be considered to be abutting the streets. Ms. Childs said that those frontages would be considered to abut the streets if one could not park a car in front of the building. Mr. Kelly questioned the impact of dropping the opportunity for realizing enhanced pedestrian space. Those amenities went beyond park benches and included plazas, arcades, sheltered or recessed entries, outdoor cafes, and courtyards. He asked how the elimination of those amenities enhanced the pedestrian feel of the block and pointed out that their provision would also push parking to the rear of a structure. Ms. Bettman responded that the provision would only apply in transit and nodal areas. The City had certain objectives it wished to achieve in those areas. There would still be 40 percent of the streetscape to use for driveways, which she hoped to narrow, and for pedestrian amenities. Ms. Bettman said that it was conventional wisdom that locating buildings on the site frontage enhanced the safety and attractiveness of the pedestrian and encouraged walking and transit use. Mr. Pap~ asked about the practical impact of the motion because he believed it could call the affordability of a development into question, leading to the location of that development elsewhere. He said the City should develop incentives encouraging development to front on the street. He said that it appeared that if the development did not achieve 60 percent site frontage, parking would not be allowed behind, so where would it be? Ms. Bettman said that because development could not install parking in front, it would be required to meet the coverage requirement. Mr. Pap~ suggested the possibility the City could lose the development. Ms. Bettman said that the City was establishing different criteria for development in the nodal and transit areas because it had different objectives to achieve. Mr. Pap~ said he did not think the City could force economics. Mr. Rayor said the intent of the motion was good but he pointed out that the current code gave developers the option to cover 40 percent or more of the site frontage. He suggested that the frontage covered by 40 percent could be two-story and the frontage extending to 60 percent could be single story. He said that there could be issues related to narrow lots. In addition, he MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 12 Work Session