Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

B. WORK SESSION: Initiating Code- Amendments for Downtown-Relate-a Zoning City Manager Taylor recalled that the item \lias scheduled for a \vork session after the council ren::uved it from the July 18 eonsent Calendar. He introduced Nan Laurence of the Planning and Development Department, \vho provided the council with a PowerPoint presentation on initiating code amendments for do\vntovm-related zoning regulations. Ms. Laurence provided some background, explaining that the idea for a new zone for downtmvn <lrose fwm the Downto',vn Vision and was supported by the Dmvntmvn Plan, \vhich "vas <ldopted by the c()uncil in April 2004. Implementing the DowntO\vn Plan was a council prionty issue. At the direction of the Planning Commission, swffworked with the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC'). a council-appointed committee, to identify some issues related to development under the current code. Follovvmg a review of that "vork, the commission expressed eunsensus that the City Hceded to reexamine some of the requirements in the cnde. IVfs. Laurence identified two goals fnr the project: 1) to align the Land Use Code With Cirowth Manage- ment Policies and the policies in the Downtown Plan; and 2) to SUpp~)f[, encourage, and reinf~Jrce <l vihrant, active, densely developed dCl\vmown. The City's overall goal was to develop znning regulations that aHowed ,in intensity and density of uses downtown and helped to implement the Downtown Plan. Ms. Laurence said the commi~:;sion found there were gaps and overlaps in the regulations as "vcll as connicts. The commission agreed the code necded to be more consistent and cfti.cctive in implementing the I)owntown Plan, Downt(Win was at a competitive disadvantage to parts of the community in regard to costs and existing regulations increased that cost. Ms. Laurencc shared mi3.ps of the exL;ting downtmvn zones \vith the council h) dlustrate the complexity of the various zoncs and ()verlays, Ms. Laurence emphasized that the commission communicated to staff the message that nexibility was key to successful facilit<ltion of creative projects. The commission Vias looking to create a baI<lnce in implementing the council's direction as expressed in the Land Use (\)(1e adopted in 2002, and the Downtown Plan, adopted in 2004. 'l'he commission believed there wcre areas ot'the code that c~mld be improved. Ivls. Laurence shared a preJirninary list of issues that the commissi()n helievcd warranted further examinati()n, suggesting that the council and public would likely add more items to the Iist. The list included: 1) transit-oriented development (TOO) overlay; 2) requirement fix nonresidential uses on the gnxmd noor; 3) limitation nn surface parking; and 4} bicycle parking. lVIs. Laurence elaborated on each issue, beginning ',,'lith the 'rOD overlay. She said the overlay included a density requirement, or Floor }\rea R<ltio (FAR) that may not be producing the desired results. and staff wished to take a closer look at that. Another C~)l1cern in regard to the TOD overlay \vas its boundaries, which did not include an of downtown and extended outside downtown. Speaking to the issue of the FAR, \{s. Laurence shared two examples of development th<lt represented the same amount of density: one example covered the entire development site with a onc-f1lKir building, while the second exan::pJe sho\ved a two-story structure occupying half the development site. MJNUTES -----Eugene City Council Work Session September 12, 2005 Page 4