Item C: Ordinance on Downtown Urban Renewal Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

good place to try the concepts out as he thought they would work there. Ms. Warnes shared the concerns about parking and street widths expressed by Mr. Hledik and Mr. Mills. Mr. Belcher said he supported a requirement for continuous awnings along the sidewalks to encourage walking in the rain. Responding to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. McKinney said there was a three-story maximum for th buildings along 15 Avenue and the Millrace, and that was illustrated in the section drawings. She referred him to page 8 of the Agenda Item Summary, which demonstrated Height Standard D. Mr. Belcher asked if page 22 of the Agenda Item Summary should be amended to make specific reference to the appeal process contemplated. Ms. McKinney agreed that might be beneficial. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik about the illustrations showing the window coverage for upper floors, Ms. McKinney said she was assured the depiction represented a 25 percent coverage area, although she agreed the illustration appeared to show more coverage than that. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik about façade articulation, Ms. McKinney indicated that there would be three percent building articulation every 100 feet for structures along the public right-of-way. A door would satisfy the requirement. She said that percentage was taken from the current code, and was triggered for large buildings over 50,000 square feet. Mr. Hledik hoped to hear more from architects about that requirement at the public hearing as he thought such articulation was critical to breaking up the mass that would otherwise exist. Ms. McKinney reported that the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) was doing a “test run” of the code, and suggested the group could be asked to look at that question. Responding to a question from Ms. Warnes, Ms. McKinney said the building setbacks applied to the Millrace, which was a Goal 5 resource. Those setback requirements were already in effect, and were 40 feet from the top of bank and applied only to properties not developed. She reminded the commission that properties already developed to the edge of the Millrace did not have to comply with the setback, even if they redeveloped. V. ENVISION EUGENE UPDATE Ms. Weiss and Ms. Jerome provided the update. Ms. Weiss reviewed the timeline for Envision Eugene and described the scope of the public involvement process. She anticipated frequent check-ins with both the commission and council. Ms. Jerome discussed the legal requirements associated with the process as they related to Statewide Goals 9 (Economic Development), 10 (Housing), and 14 (Urbanization). She said Goal 14 mandated that the City must have sufficient land to accommodate 20 years of its needs for housing and employment within its Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). How a jurisdiction regulated the use of land determined the amount of land available. The City was obliged to prepare a housing needs analysis and an economic opportunities MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 29, 2010 Page 6