CC Minutes - 09/12/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In regard to the TOD, Ms. Bettman said transit-oriented development was nodal development. The idea behind nodal development was to have frequent, efficient transit in residential and commercial densities and intensities that facilitated the use of transit. Ms. Bettman supported reconsideration of the requirement for nonresidential uses on first floors in the C-2 district downtown. Speaking to the issue of bicycle parking, Ms. Bettman thought there were ways to externalize bicycle parking from the building to maximize the intensity of use in the building itself. Ms. Bettman objected that the only interest group with input into the list was the ERAC. She thought that committee already got its "very narrowly defined" issues on the table and other groups needed to be given that opportunity to 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 Downtown Plan. She thought that needed to occur before the council initiated an expensive code amendment process. Ms. Bettman wanted an idea of where that process would go before she voted to support it. Mayor Piercy solicited a second round of council questions and comments. Mr. Kelly liked Ms. Bettman's suggestion 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 before the council, Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bettman about the reexamination of the ground floor requirement in the C-2 zone in downtown. He likened the bicycle parking issue to the parking exempt zone for automobiles and suggested that if a developer was not required to construct bicycle parking, there should be readily available shared bicycle parking. Mr. Kelly agreed that the boundary issues associated with the TOD should be resolved. He supported simplified and consistent boundaries. Ms. Bettman recalled that the council discussed creating a Ballot Measure 37 compensation fund so that, for example, if it wanted to regulate for design standards it would have the ability to do so. If, through changes in the development regulation process, the City bestowed a financial advantage on a property owner, there would be a way for the City to recapture a portion of that benefit in the form of cash and place it in the Ballot Measure 37 fund, or it could work out some sort of exchange with the property owner for design standards. She pointed out that the council had planned to consider design standards to accomplish some of the initiatives in the Downtown Plan and now the council's hands were tied by the passage of the measure. The fact that fund had not been created prior to this process was an issue for Ms. Bettman. Ms. Bettman spoke to the issue of surface parking lots in the C-3 zone and the relationship to the FAR, and emphasized the importance of having multi-story buildings downtown. Such buildings were key to the TOD for creating an intensity of use. If the City densified residential uses, it should be equitable and densify other uses as well. The City lost the advantage of residential densification when it allowed other sprawling development in downtown. Ms. Bettman questioned if the code would allow someone to combine properties, demolish the existing buildings, and install surface parking lot on a portion of the site. Ms. Laurence said there was a limitation in the C-3 zone that precluded more than 20 surface spaces. The current code would preclude what Ms. Bettman suggested. Ms. Laurence added that if the City was to make a change to the code, staff wanted to ensure it knew what the issues were and then attempt to determine the correct solution. She did not think that the right solution was wholesale allowance of surface parking; rather, it could be a MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 12, 2005 Page 7