CC MInutes - 10/30/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

hoped that Eugene did not find itself with commercial establishments that, for the sake of security, had to bar the windows required by the City. Mr. Farr thought there was value to windows for the reasons cited by Ms. Bettman but he did not like the idea that the City would require such windows of commercial developers for an aesthetic purpose when aesthetics could be achieved in a different way. He thought the motion too inflexible. Ms. Nathanson requested more staff input about the feasibility of the motion. Ms. Bishow responded that it could be clear in the ordinance to what uses the standard applied, so her only concern would be situations where a change of use occurred after the building was constructed. She noted that the Planning Commission had recommended exterior windows only for large- scale commercial uses. The motion would greatly increase the number of situations the standard applied to. If it was the council's intention to improve the appearance of smaller buildings, staff could look at other techniques, such as murals and interesting architectural details. Mr. Farmer briefly discussed the subject of crime prevention through environmental design. He said that national information indicated that transparent windows provided greater public safety on the sidewalk and into the commercial establishment. A display window would not achieve a true level of transparency, so ordinances written over the last ten years in other areas to address the issue typically required some true level of transparency. He suggested that staff could investigate whether there was a class of uses to which the standard could be applied. Mr. Farmer noted that Walgrens, for example, was a store that had voluntarily adopted a design model that met the proposed standard as its national model. Mr. Rayor did not support the motion because of the problem created by the change of use situation. He thought the requirement appropriate for larger commercial buildings but questioned it for smaller commercial buildings. Ms. Bettman said that a street scape with windows and displays was attractive but her motion was more impelled by the safety issue and what she had seen happening around the country in terms of new urban planning. She did not think signs or murals instead of windows would achieve her objective. Mr. Farr agreed that windows were the most attractive and safest alternative. However, he noted that Walgrens, the store mentioned by Mr. Farmer, were quite large and could afford to give up the space that a 5,000 square-foot retailer would not be able to lose without cost. At the request of Mr. Meisner, Ms. Bishow reviewed the window requirements in place for large- scale commercial uses. Mr. Kelly said the motion was intended to foster safety, aesthetics, and activity. He agreed that the change of use situation could be a challenge, but said there were several instances in the code where changes in use created new requirements. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to amend to the motion to direct staff to return to the council with a modified standard for buildings other than large-scale buildings as addressed in the code. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 30, 2000 Page 4 Work Session