Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

In regard to the TOD, Ms. BeUman said transit-oriented development was nodal developtnent. The idea behind nodal development was to have frequent, efficient transit in res,dential and cornmcrcial densities and intensities that fadlitated the w;e of transit. Ms. Bettman ~;upporti'::d reconsideration of the requirement for nonresidential uses on first Doors ill the ('~2 district downtown. Speaking to the issue of bicycle parking, tv1s. Hettman thought there 'vvere \vays tn externalize bicycle parking from the building to maximize the intcnsity of use in the building itself. Ms. Bettman objected that the only interest group 'Nith input into the list was the I:':RAC. She thought that c~m1n::ittee already got iL; "very narmvily defined" issucs on the table and other groups needed lObe given that opportunity tLl put their issues on the table so the council could pick and choose among them those things it believed would help implement the highest priOrIties in the Downto\vn Plan. She thought that needed to occur bd(xe the council initiated an expensive code anlendment process. Ms. Bettman\.v~mted an idea of 'vvhere that process would go before ;:;he voted to support it. May~)r Piercy solicited a second round of council questions and comments. Mr. Kelly liked 1\.015. Bettman's suggest JOn that the City solicit other ideas and suggestions from the public through a brief public process and that the council winnow those suggestions. Speaking to the four issues beii-!['e the council. M1'. K.elly agrecd '':'l,th J'vrs. Bettman about the reexamina- tion of the gTOund lloor requirement in the ('-2 zone in downtov.m. He likened the bicyck parking issue to the parking exempt 7.one for automobiles and suggested that if a developer W3S not required to construct bicycle parking, th,~re should be readily avaibblc shared bicycle parking. ~vrr. Kelly agreed that the boundary issues associated with the 'fOD should be resolved. He supported sirnplified and consistent boundarI($. Ms. Bellman recalled that the council discussed creating a Ballot Measure 37 compensation [i.me! so that, f~lr example, if it wanted to regulate for design st3:ndards it would have the ability to do so, H~ through changes in the development regubtion process, the City bestowed a financial advantage on a property owner, there \vmild be a 'vvay for the City to recapture a portion of that benefit in the form of cash and place it ill the Ballot tvfcasure 37 fund, or it could work out some sort of exchange with the property owner for design standards. She pointed out that the COllncil had planned to consider design ~,tandards to accomplish some of the initiatives in the DowntO\vn Pkm and now the council's hands were tied by the passage ofthe measure. The fact that fund. had n~)t been created prior tn this process was an issue for 1\15. Bellman. Nk Bettman ~,poke to the issue of surflcc parking tots in the C.] zone and the relationship to the FAR, and empbasized the imporiance of having multi-story buildings downtown. Such buildings were key to the TOD for creating an intensity of use If the City densiiied residential uses, it should be equitable and dcnsity- other uses as well. The City lost the advantage of residential densification when it al[owed other sprawling development in downtO'vvn. Ms. BeUman questioned if the code would aHo'vv someone to combine properties, demolish the existing buildings, and instal[ surL=,ce parking lot on a portion of the Slle. Ms. Laurence said there was a limitation in the ('-3 zone that precluded more tban 20 surh1ce spaces. The current code would preclude what },;ls. Bettrnan suggested. Ms. Laurence added that if the City was to make a change to the code, staff'vvanted to ensure it knC'vv what the issues were and then attempt to determine the correct solution. She did not think that the right solution was wholesale allowance of fVllNUTES nnEugene City Council \V ork Session September 12, 2005 Page 7