Item B: Initiating Code Amendment for Downtown-Related Zoning Regulations

Home Browse Search

1. Removing the requirement for nonresidential uses on the ground floor for properties zoned C-2 within the Downtown Plan area. 2. Modifying the limitation on 20 surface spaces for downtown properties zoned C-3. 3. Reducing the FAR required, for both the 2.0 area and the 1.0 area. 4. Changing the criteria for modification of FAR requirements through the Adjustment Review process, such as by allowing a taller first floor to count instead of FAR. 5. Revising the /TD boundaries to correspond with the Downtown Plan area. 6. Extending the Parking Exempt area to correspond with the Downtown Plan area. 7. Modify the code to allow for more flexibility in terms of meeting the bike parking requirement. 8. Adding language within the revised /TD regulations which address the Great Streets concept. Ms. Levis was concerned with the lack of details in number three. She expressed concern that we would not get what was desired, and would get more of what was not desired. She was concerned that unintended consequences that occurred during the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) discussions would not be adequately remedied, adding that the code often kept more desirable development out. Ms. Laurence said the ERAC conceded that it did not know what the right FAR was, but that density, height and urban form appropriate for a downtown area was desirable. She said Mr. Braud had provided information to the ERAC that explained the FAR philosophy for downtown. Mr. Weinman said that loading zones and bicycle parking, among other uses, reduced the actual size of the FAR. Ms. Colbath said it was important to explicitly indicate what was desired versus analytically applying a number to what was desirable, to prevent discouraging desirable development in the future. She asked what type of financial and economic data was used by the ERAC to reach the conclusions that the proposed changes would work for the size of Eugene’s downtown versus what the future downtown would look like. She expressed concern that the Planning Commission was responding to the current situation but not necessarily looking at what the situation will look like 20 years out, and what the impacts of the kind of things that will occur over the next 20 years. She asked if other cities were contacted to help determine if both short and long term changes would ultimately be beneficial. Mr. Sullivan replied that the ERAC members represented a broad base of experienced professionals who were drawn from private interests that own and develop property in cities, both inside and outside of this region. Their direct experience with dealing with this specific set of code requirements in this market was added to their experience in development in other markets with other codes. Ms. Laurence said ERAC members consisted of downtown property owners, downtown residents, a member of the voter pool, and several developers. Ms. Colbath was concerned about developing at lower densities that would prohibit higher intensity development in the future knowing there was limited land downtown. Mr. Lawless noted there were a number of other projects that went sideways in the past two or three years due to the FAR requirements. He said there was a significant amount of land MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 14, 2005 Page 2