Laserfiche WebLink
<br />mt~nt-",Mr. Kelly said "neeir' was an interesting word: \vLuh.:: the US Dank Building "needed" surface <br />parking, there vvere eight.story banks in many locations without surface parking that thrived. He said <br />market needs and )and use needs must be balanced. <br /> <br />fV1r. Kelly had no interest in reducing the FAR but \h)uId like to have a discussiun in Vv'hich it wa~> recast <br />(JS two functional t1oors. <br /> <br />tAs. Ortiz que~~tioned \vhether the downtown needed l1:1ore parking, but she did believe downtovm needed <br />longer term parking. She asked if three..hour parking could be tried, pninting out that most of her <br />constituents had to drive to downtown rather than \valk or ride their bicycles and were unk\ppy whcn they <br />received tickets, which kept them from corning back dm-vntown. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy suggested that the council needed to have a broader conversation about parking in genernl to <br />determine what \vas working. hi regard to the development of first Hoors, she expressed concern that the <br />City would react to past patterns as opposed to thinking about the future. Mayor Picrcy did n(jt knmv <br />'.A/hat VlOU ld bappen if development downtown accclerated and downtown became rnore energized. She <br />suggested that eould change huw mucb people wanted to have the storefronts. <br /> <br />Me Polmg, sect)n{kd hyJ'vls. Solomon, moved to extend timc for the item hy ten minutes. <br />The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, T\.1r. Kelly, and Ms. Bdtman voting n~). <br /> <br />fv1r. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to initiate amendments t~) Eugene Cnck <br />Chapter q to more closely align the Land Use Code 'with the Dm",ntuwn Plan. <br /> <br />Me Poling pointed out the motion merely started a puhhc process that cmiId lead to possible changes to <br />the codc. <br /> <br />tvls. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly moved to amend thc motion to initiate a scoping <br />proccss tn bring a broader range of Eugene Code Chapter 9 options back to the cotUlcil to <br />more closely align the Land Use Code with the Downtown Plan. <br /> <br />Ms. Hettman questioncd the cornmission's decision to charge the ERAC ,vith identi fying issues related to <br />the code and dowmovvn, as the cmnmittcc had a nJTrovAy defined charge and the land use issues wcre of <br />grcat interest to many residents. She believed there were more options the council should be considering, <br />and she \vanted to see those options and give morc clear direction to statThefore doing something as <br />serious as initiating amendments to the code. Ms. Dettman said the proc<.::ss being proposed seemed <br />premature. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon thought the amendment undermined the work already done by the Flan!lmg Commission. <br />Shc pointed out that the commission had receli/ed input from a councd..directed CCHl1mittee that was <br />invcsted with the task of considering the downtown. Ms. Solomon thought that input W{JS appropriate. <br />She thought the proposed process a good start, and broadening the scope would threaten the commission'~> <br />ability to do the needed work. tv1s, Solomon trusted the work done by the commission and prefcrred to <br />stick to the topics identified by the commission first. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said the minutes indicated that commission had not determined that the issues identified by <br />ERAe were priorities, merely that they deserved further examinatinn. 'fhe commission only spent a small <br />amount of meeting time on the issue. He supported the amendment becaw~e staff \vas asking f~")r direction <br />on the next steps in the process and he thought the amendment provided that direction. He suggested <br /> <br />jyHj\lnES~Eugcne City Council <br />Work Session <br /> <br />September 12, 2005 <br /> <br />Page 9 <br />