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

Home Browse Search

timing restriction in regard to development phases, an increase in parking tied to an increase in density, or a prohibition on surface parking on properties located on Great Streets. Ms. Bettman said she would need to see more information about the issue because she thought limiting surface parking in downtown was also essential to downtown. Ms. Taylor asked why the City would want to allow more parking. She thought the goal in the Downtown Plan was to reduce surface parking. Ms. Laurence suggested there was a balance between the needs of development and the City's desires for a dense and active downtown. Some uses needed a certain amount of surface parking before they could be persuaded to locate downtown. Ms. Laurence said there was no flexibility about the issue in the code, and the commission was questioning whether the selected number was the right number. She said that it could be that the solution was not a code amendment, but the issue kept surfacing as something that should be examined. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly that more people should be asked to offer ideas. She expressed interest in having more information about the reason that ideas were proposed and who was behind the proposals so the council could discuss the proposals with them. She thought adjustments to the TOD boundaries and the issue of commercial uses on ground floors could be addressed quickly, but the other items on the list needed a lot more discussion. Mr. Pape expressed appreciation for Ms. Laurence's response to Ms. Taylor's question regarding surface parking. He believed that the council had attempted to push the market in regard to the Garden Way node rather than be flexible in regard to market demands, and the result was a development that was not that desired by the neighbors. Mr. Pape urged the council to be flexible in its requirements to allow the market to act. He did not think the council could drive the market. Mr. Pape asked if other examples had brought the issues before the council to the forefront. Ms. Laurence cited St. Vincent de Paul's Aurora Building as an example of a residential building with commercial space on the ground floor for which it had a difficult time finding a tenant. The same was true of Broadway Place. City Manager Taylor added staff was prompted to add the item to the Consent Calendar as a way to align the Downtown Plan and the code. He did not foresee a process that was limited to the issues before the council. Mr. Pape believed that all councilors wished to have an active and lively downtown, and suggested that Eugene's downtown would look different than that of Portland 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. Mr. Kelly said he did not expect to see actual code language before the council initiated a code amendment, but he believed it was important to have a clear scope of work. He had been concerned because, while he agreed with the goal of simplifying the code and making it consistent with the Downtown Plan, there were items with the potential of going the opposite direction, such as changes to the FAR or surface parking requirements. He needed to get over that concern to feel comfortable in going forward. Mr. Kelly also expressed appreciation for Ms. Laurence's remarks regarding surface parking but pointed out there was already a lot of surface parking in downtown and he was reluctant to create more. He MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 12, 2005 Page 8