Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

surface parking; rather, it could be a timing restriction in regard to development phases, an increase m parking tied to an increase in density, or a prohibition on surface parking on properties located on Great Streets. Ms. Heitman said she WOUld need to seernore information about the issue because she thought limiting surface parking in dmvntmvn \vas also esscntial to downtown. Ms. Taylor asked why the City would want to al1o\v rnore parking. She thought the goal in the DO'yvntG\vn Plan was to reduce surbce p;::,rking. Ivh Laurence sugge~;ted there was a balance between the needs of dcvelopment and the City's desires fi.lr a dense and active downtown. Sorne uses needed a certain amount of surfnce parkingbdore they could be persuaded to locate dmvmovvn. tJs. Laurence said there was no tlexibility aboUlthe issue in the code, and the commission \vas questioning whethcr the selected number vms the right number. She said that it could be th<lt the solution was not a code amendment, but the issue kcpt surfacing as something that should be examined. Ms, Taylor agreed with Ms. HeHman and IV1r. Kelly that more people should be asked to nffer ideas. She expressed intcrest in having more information about the reason that ideas \vtTe proposed and \vh~) was behind the proposals so the council could discuss the proposals with them, She thought adjustments to the Ton boundaries and the issue of commercial uses ~)n ground floors could be addressed quickly, but the other items on the list needed a Jot more discussion, t,rr. Papc expressed appreci;::.tion fl~H' Ms. Laurence's response toMs. TaYlor's question rcg.arding suri~lce parking. He be1ieved that the c~)uncil had attempted to push the market in regard h) the (larden \Vay node rather than he flexible in regard to market demands, and the result was a development that was not that desired by the neighbors. Mr.Papc urged the council 1.0 be nexible in its requirerncnts to allow the market to act. He did not think the council could drive the market. Mr. Pap(~ asked if other examples had brought the issues before the conndl to the forefront. l'vls. Laurence cited St. Vincent de Paul's Aurora Building <lS an example of a residential building with commercial space on the ground f100r for \vhich it had a diHlcult time finding a tenant. The same was true of Broac1\vay Place. City !\hnager Taylor added staffwa~; prornpted to add the item to the Consent Calendar as a ',vay to align the D~)\vntown Plan and the code. He did not tl)reSee a process that ,vas limIted to the issues bctixe the counci1. 1\1r. Pape believed that all councilors \vished to havc an active and lively dovvntown, and suggested that Eugene's dmvntown would look different than that ofPonland or Seattle because of its dIfferent size and marketplace, He thought the community was on the verge of seeing some real downtown revitalization because of the announced plans of downtown property owners, and hoped Eugene did not miss the opportunity. Mayor Piercy solicited a third round of comments and questions. IVIr. KellY said he did not expect to see actual code language beti:!l'e the council initiated a code amend- ment, but he believed it was important to have a dear scope of work. He had been concerned because, while he agreed with the goal of simplifying the code and makmg it consi,<;;tent with the Downtown Pian, therc were items with the potential of going the opposite direction, such as changes to the FAR or surface parking requirements. He Heeded to get ovcr that concern to feel comfortable in going forward. Mr. Kelly also expressed appreciation tl)r },rls. Laurence's remarks regarding surface parking but pointed out there was already a lot of surf::tce parking in downtown and hc was reluctant to create more. He suggested tbat may be better ways to employ existing surface parking, such as shared parking arrang.e- MINUTES~Eugcne City C:ounciJ 'Work Session September l2, 2005 Page 8