Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Laurence spoke of the examples that arose during the commission's discussion, including the US B . B 'Jd'. 1F"J . .., A "Ill At. 1 .. . '-J -, -, I · ant(: U1. Il1g on h'l1 amette ;:-}treet anu (\ t'<. venue, \VtHC 1 at elgtlt ~~tones was les~, t lan 2.\) h\H. tIe librRrY, which at four stories was bardy 2,0 FAR, and Broadway Place, v.;hid1 at thrce stories was less than 2.0 FAR (1.55) because of the open space included in the development to add 1iv<lbiJity. The Beron BuiJding was brought out to the street alld had parking located behind the building, achieving urban design goals but resulting in <llowcr FAR ~)f 1.47. Ms. Laurence shared examples oft\vo possible developments on the present US Bank site t() demonstrate bow a low-rise cornmercial developmcnt and a high-rise comroercial development at the same density w~mld occupy the same ~:;ik. She suggested the high.rise commercial development \\icmld produce <1 result more in line with the recommendations nfthe DOi'I-'Dtovm Plan, because \vhile II included surbce parKmg on a portion of the site, the surLlce parking could be redeveloped as another building, jvls. Laurcnce showed the council a slide of the TOD bnundaries and identified where 1.0 and 2.0 FAR was required. She said the comrnission agrecd the City should considcr the long-term consequence of requiring a higher fAH outside the downtown core, as it could encourage development outside the core that the community might prefer to keep in the core. ~-Is. Laurence discussed the City's requirernent fnr nomcsidential uses on ground Honrs in residential structures in the C-2 z()ne. The commission agreed that the C'ity needed to take a lo~)k at the requirement and reconsider its application in dO'vvntuwn. ~y1s, Laurence said the commission believed the City needed to balance its desire for ground. floor commercial \vith its desire for downtown residential development. She noted the many vacant storefwnts that already existed in downtown, and said tile requirement increased the cost of residential dcvelopment in downtovm, which was already higher than in other areas ofthe cormnunity. In addition, the n~quirement encouraged developrnent on streets that were not designated as Great Streets and, given existing vacancies the community \'iOuld have difficulty filling vacancies even on the Great Streets. Ms. Laurence discw;sed the limitatIon on sl1rbce parking contamed in the C-:) zone. She suggested the issue required a balance of values; parking was needed to support comrnercwl uses downtown, but the City had a desire for a densely developed downtov.ri1. Some surface pmking might be needed to facilitate ~~ommercial development, with the proviso that such parking W<lS not permanent. Ms. Laurence said the commission discussed the provision uf such parking as a Iandbanking strategy, and agreed the entire js~,.ue needed hlrther reexamination. Vfs. Laurence discussed the issue of long..term bicycle parking reqllirernents. She said the code !'equired a number of lung~term spaces be located in a budding, but there could be more than one way to park bicycles. The City was working with the Vniversity of Oregon's Community Planning Workshop and the c~)l1ltnunity's bicycling community on a survey to explore the issue. She asked if it was possible t~) have a code that was sufficiently flexible to accommodate bicycle ridership while aJl~)wing f(,r a project to have a different response to the rcquirement for long-term parking. 1\.15. Laurence sought council initiatinn of the code amendments so staff could move forward with the !111plementat ion of the code amendments, heginnmg with a public process. She noted the next steps in the process, and emphasized th<lt the council would be the final decision makcL Mayor Piercy solicited council comments and questions. MINUTES nnEugene City Council \Vurk Session September] 2, 2005 Page 5