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

Home Browse Search

available in the form of surface parking lots in C-3 zoned parcels acting as a land bank and holding places. He asked if we were going to continue to set the bar higher than the market would bear, and cross our fingers and hope development space would be preserved for 20 years, essentially allowing the current potential opportunities to be lost. He was more interested in examining the economy of holding places in surface parking lots than with maintain FAR requirements that could result in lost opportunities in the urban core. He added that caution should be used when setting artificial goals. Mr. Hudspeth said he was uncomfortable amending the code to reduce the bicycle parking requirement, noting that it would discourage bicycle use. He asked if the proposed code change was related to amending the code for the proposed hospital at the current Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) site. Ms. Laurence replied the only thing in terms of EWEB was that after the changes were made to the /TD for downtown, the changes would be extended to the EWEB property so that EWEB would also be covered by the /TD requirements. Currently, the fact that there was no alley on the EWEB property that provided grounds for an adjustment review specifically on that property. Approximately one-half of the EWEB property was included in the /TD. She added that ERAC recommended flexibility in applying the bike parking standards. Ms. Levis suggested that the code language be amended to provide for greater flexibility in applying the bicycle parking requirement. Mr. Sullivan said approximately 1,300 square feet of bicycle parking, the equivalent of a residential unit, or a well configured commercial space, was required for the Aurora Building. He asked if it would be possible to look at parking as a utility which was what the parking exempt zone did, since those buildings do not need to provide vehicle parking. He asked if it would be possible to incorporate bicycle parking into the same utility function, pulling it out of buildings and into projects. He added it was a big financial and configuration issue for developers. Ms. Colbath asked if property brought into the Riverfront would be parking exempt under the proposed /TD adjustments. She also asked what the impact of taking away commercial use on the ground floor and related foot traffic would be. Ms. Laurence replied there was a map entitled Select Downtown Zoning on page III-9 of the agenda packet that illustrated the current parking exempt areas, noting that one-half of EWEB was already in the parking exempt area, and mirrored the /TD. She said there was an expressed value that having more people living downtown was desirable, while at the same time, there were ground floor commercial spaces that were not leased. She said having more people living downtown was one way of bringing value and income and activity downtown. Referring to the Great Streets concept, Ms. Laurence stressed requiring what you really want where you really want it. There were areas downtown that had that requirement that were not in core of downtown, but more of a neighborhood area at the edge of the core, where commercial uses, particularly at a higher FAR, did not need to be required. Ms. Colbath suggested making the requirement more flexible rather than an absolute value. Mr. Lawless noted there was consensus that the proposal was generally the direction the Planning Commission could support. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 14, 2005 Page 3