Laserfiche WebLink
suggested the result could be one-story development with a cut-out because 60 percent <br />coverage was a lot. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs expressed some confusion about the statement in the motion indicating that 60 <br />percent of the site frontage must be occupied by a building for parking to be allowed at the rear <br />or sides of the building because it was her understanding that was where the council wanted <br />parking located. Regarding the increase from 40 percent to 60 percent, she said she was less <br />concerned about that given the council's revisions to the floor area ratios (FAR) in the \TD areas. <br />Mr. Kelly pointed out that the text to which Ms. Childs referred was in the current code. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow said that the motion was a strong mandate to do side and rear parking in the \ND <br />and \TD zones. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson was not comfortable proceeding with the motion because she did not have <br />enough information about the calculations involved. She diagramed an example and questioned <br />how it would work for driveway clearances, access, sight lines, and turnaround space. Ms. <br />Bettman suggested that an exemption could be included in the code to address situations where <br />driveways would affect the percentage of site frontage coverage. She suggested that the <br />adjustment review process was another opportunity to adjust the percentage of site frontage <br />coverage if a development met the intent, but not the specific criteria, of the code. Ms. Bettman <br />added that 40 percent site frontage coverage in the \ND and \TD zones did not seem adequate to <br />her. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner wanted to support the motion but wanted to ensure that it achieved the desired <br />results. He suggested that the motion be amended to indicate that 60 percent of the site <br />frontage would be occupied by a building and enhanced pedestrian space provided no more than <br />a certain percentage, such as 20 percent, be the enhanced pedestrian space. Ms. Bettman and <br />Mr. Kelly accepted Mr. Meisner's suggestion as a friendly amendment. Ms. Childs said that staff <br />would follow-up by developing the appropriate text. The motion then read ':.. 60 percent of the <br />site frontage abutting the street (excluding required interior yards) with up to 20 percent of that 60 <br />percent allowed in enhanced pedestrian spaces." <br /> <br />Mr. Fart found the amended motion more acceptable than the original motion, but also shared <br />Ms. Nathanson's concerns regarding driveway clearances and sight lines. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked staff if Ms. Bettman's statement that adjustment review process could provide a <br />mechanism to address concerns about sight lines and driveway width was true. Ms. Childs said <br />that the mechanism existed but she did not recall if there was an adjustment for those issues in <br />the process at the current time. Mr. Kelly suggested that the safety issue could be addressed at <br />a broader level by full-site frontage and alley access to parking lots at the rear of the structure. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ suggested that the goal of the motion could be achieved over time by requiring any off- <br />street parking to be a certain distance from the street and a certain degree of pedestrian <br />amenities. He though that the motion could be economically problematic for some developers. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she liked the idea of increasing building frontage along the street and putting <br />parking in back, but continued to be concerned that the math worked out and the result was not <br />additional expense for a property owner who happened to be located on, for example, an 85-foot <br />frontage as opposed to a 100-foot frontage. She asked staff to return with something workable <br />after it received the council's general direction. Ms. Bishow agreed. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 13 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />