Laserfiche WebLink
pretty aggressive for multiple-family projects, particularly if there was no site width frontage <br />requirement for the \TD and \ND areas. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thought the motion would have improved the appearance of the streetscape but <br />acknowledged a lack of support for the approach. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman withdrew her motion. Mr. Meisner withdrew his second. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to direct the City Manager to amend <br /> Section 9.5500(4)(b) to require at least 60 percent of the site frontage <br /> abutting the street (including interior yards) to be occupied by a building <br /> and/or enhanced pedestrian space with no more than 20 percent of the 60 <br /> percent in enhanced pedestrian areas. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported Mr. Kelly's motion. He also appreciated what Ms. Bettman had suggested <br />and hoped that the council discussed the approach again during its reviews of the code. <br />However, he thought what Mr. Kelly proposed would make a great deal of difference. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly said that the 20 percent of the 60 percent <br />in enhanced pedestrian area was consistent with what the council decided for the \TD and \ND <br />zones. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked how the motion would apply to a multi-family unit in challenging topography. Ms. <br />Bishow said the standard was the same regardless of topography. The adjustment review <br />criteria could be used to adjust the standard. She said that the Planning Director would review <br />all adjustments; appeals of minor adjustments would go to the Hearings Official, and appeals of <br />major adjustments would go to the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor did not support the motion. He said that an R-2 zone might be outside the downtown <br />area where nothing else is massed against the street. He understood the intent of the approach <br />in commercial zones, downtown, and close-in neighborhoods, he did not understand its <br />application in the south hills, for example. Mr. Rayor suggested that the council was considering <br />adding something to the code that it may not fully understand the implications of. <br /> <br />In response to Mr. Rayor's remarks, Mr. Kelly said that it was his goal to, over time, change the <br />streetscape in multi-family residential zones throughout the city to make it more appealing. He <br />said that he intended the motion to apply to all areas. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 4:2; Mr. Rayor and Mr. Pap~ voting no. <br /> <br />Commercial and Industrial Density/Appearance--Consent Item <br /> <br /> Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend the code to: <br /> a. Provide a mechanism to minimize adjacent curb cuts in commercial <br /> development. <br /> b. Clarify when different development standards are applicable taking into <br /> account the different situations such as new development on vacant <br /> land versus infill development on existing development sites. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 2000 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />