Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/11/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall--Eugene, Oregon October 11, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Fart, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Items from Mayor, Council, and City Manager Ms. Bettman passed. Ms. Taylor commended the report of the Parks Blocks Placemaking Committee and recommended that the council hold a work session to discuss the report. The report had good suggestions and she did not want to let it die from lack of action. Ms. Taylor wanted the council to do something about the Farmers Market soon, which might possibly leave downtown. Ms. Taylor expressed concern about downtown zoning because of reports about the possible construction of a tall building on Willamette Street. She called for an examination of zoning in downtown soon so that the council could decide what type of construction it wanted in particular locations, rather than just allowing development to happen. Ms. Taylor thought the council should adopt pads of the Land Use Code Update that seemed urgent and delay action on other pads, saying there was nothing magic about the current deadline for adoption. She thought action on downtown zoning issues was urgent as she did not believe that residents wanted downtown to all be office space. Mr. Kelly requested a progress report on the right-of-way enforcement pilot. He said that it would be useful for the council to have a staff contact name for the pilot. Regarding the report of the Parks Block Placemaking Committee, Mr. Kelly said that staff was developing an action plan for each of the recommendations in the report and he would notify the council when that work was completed. Responding to Ms. Taylor's remarks about the construction of large buildings, Mr. Kelly said in this case the proposed structure was to be a four- to five-story building, which he did not consider large. Although he did not want to see the entire downtown developed as offices, he preferred to have significant office space downtown rather than scattered throughout the community. Mr. Pap~ said that during the summer he and Ms. Taylor had attended sister city dinners for delegations from Kakegawa, Japan, and Chinju, South Korea, and he had learned that Kakegawa was building a new library that would be dedicated in June 2001 and had invited MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 1 Work Session interested Eugene councilors to help inaugurate its opening in June 2001. He circulated a brochure regarding Kakegawa's new library. Mr. Pap8 said that the dinners were a pleasant experience. Mr. Pap8 suggested a council work session on the Sister City Program be scheduled in the future as he was not comfortable with the current direction of the program and had questions about the budget, number of sister cities, and the City's relationship with the Sister City Foundation. He indicated he would submit his request for a work session in writing. Ms. Nathanson arrived at the meeting. Mr. Pap8 said he had a constituent request that the council consider a cat ordinance similar to the City's dog ordinances. He indicated he would submit a request for a work session on such an ordinance in writing. Responding to Ms. Taylor's comments regarding downtown development, Mr. Meisner did not think zoning was the problem with downtown. He was more concerned about the description of the proposed building on Willamette Street, a windowless four-stow structure, which emphasized to him the importance of design standards. Mr. Meisner said that he had visited with some constituents who had complained about homeless camping and had heard much praise of Sue Collins of the City Manager's Office. Those complaining stated they felt listened to. Ms. Nathanson expressed appreciation she had been able to participate in a Habitat for Humanity Project supported in part by Weyerhaeuser on Four Grange Road in her ward. She said that the volunteer participation was wonderful to see. Mr. Johnson reported that seven bids had been submitted for construction of the library. As soon as more was known about the bids, staff would pass the information on to the council. Mr. Johnson said that he had discussed different approaches to the issue of homeless camping with Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer and Police Chief Jim Hill earlier that day. He believed that the City's response to problems associated with homeless camping would be improved with the formation of an interdepartmental staff and nonprofit team that met once weekly. Mr. Farr requested an update on the arts selection process for the new library, noting his interest in ensuring the library contained art from local artists. Mr. Farr endorsed Mr. Meisner's commendation of Sue Collins, saying that he had also heard praise of Ms. Collins from a constituent. Referring to the council's joint meeting with the Human Rights Commission, Mr. Farr said that members of the commission were tireless in the work they do and spent considerable time outside the commission setting on human rights issues. He determined from Mr. Johnson that the Human Rights Support System was not codified. Mr. Johnson added he did not think it needed to be codified. Mr. Farr indicated a citizen seemed to think it was a problem it was not and said he would follow-up with the manager. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Rayor thanked City staff, particularly Public Works staff, for its assistance with an unhappy constituent living on an unimproved road in his ward. He believed that such an immediate response saved local government time and money in the long-term. B.Work Session: April 2000 Draft Land Use Code The council was joined by Planning Director Jan Childs, Senior Planner Teresa Bishow, and City Attorney Emily Jerome for the item. Ms. Bishow briefly reviewed the packet contents, calling the council's attention to consent item motions, policy motions, and a suggested alternative method of addressing the solar access standards, developed in response to the council's discussion at a previous work session. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to accept the items on the consent list, with the exception of item l(b). a. Amend section 9.6410(1) to allow required off-street parking to be provided on the development site or within 1,500 feet from the development site. c. Amend the/-I-D and ~ND overlay zones to provide additional ways to encourage pedestrian enhanced spaces. d. Amend section 9.6745 regarding driveways to minimize the permitted area for driveways within required front yard setbacks. e. Amend section 9.5500(12) of the multiple-family standards, to require setback sidewalks along any public and private street adjacent to or within the development site. f. Amend section 9.6745(7) to clarify that off-street parking is prohibited in afl zones within the required front yard setback with the few exceptions listed, such as parking in driveways associated with one- family and two-family dwellings. g. Amend section 9.6745(7) to prohibit parking in any required interior yard setback in C-2. h. Delete section 9.9100(9)(a) Adjustment Review - Multiple-Family Standards to eliminate the aflowance of curbside sidewalks in multiple family developments even along portions of private streets that provide parallel on-street parking. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Addressing item (b), removed from the Consent Calendar items, Mr. Kelly said that he pulled the item because, as drafted, it called for a conditional use permit process for Bed and Breakfasts in R-1 and R-2 zones. Since the draft code limited such uses to two guest rooms in R-1 and four guest rooms in R-2, he thought that the impact was too small to justify the conditional use permit process. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to amend Table 9.6410 to eliminate the minimum off-street parking requirement for bed and breakfasts and home occupations. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Nathanson said that she understood the intent of the motion but she was concerned that bed and breakfast operations would be able to be sited without input by adjacent residents. Mr. Fart thought that eliminating the minimum parking requirement increased flexibility for bed and breakfast operators. If such individuals found it in their best interest to provide additional off- street parking, they could do so. Ms. Bettman said that the original motion would not prevent a bed and breakfast operator from providing more parking, but it would ensure, through the conditional use permit process, that the front yard of a bed and breakfast operation was sited to avoid paving of the front yard to accommodate parking. Mr. Meisner determined from Ms. Bishow that the motion would apply to any bed and breakfast of any size in the cited zones. He was not concerned about the motion as it concerned home occupations, but pointed out large bed and breakfast operations needed considerably more parking than small bed and breakfast operations. Bed and breakfast operations attracted visitors to a neighborhood, Mr. Meisner said, and that created an impact on neighborhoods. He preferred the conditional use permit approach for bed and breakfasts in R-1 and R-2 zones in the original motion. Responding to a question from Mr. Fart, Ms. Bettman said that her original motion was not specific to the R-1 and R-2 zones; it had applied to all bed and breakfasts in all zones. Mr. Fart suggested that the motion be amended to refer to the R-1 and R-2 zones. Mr. Rayor said that he was not concerned about the motion as it related to bed and breakfasts in the R-1 and R-2 zones for the reasons cited by Mr. Kelly. However, he did not support the motion as it applied to large bed and breakfasts in R-3, R-4, and commercial zones because the motion would essentially allow for the provision of no parking at all. Mayor Torrey said that in the case of a tie he would vote against the motion, not because he opposed the concept but because he did not like crafting the update "on the fly." Ms. Childs suggested that the council consider revising Table 9.6410 to ensure that one parking space per guest room was required in bed and breakfasts with five or more bedrooms. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to amend the motion to revise Table 9.6410 to provide a minimum of one parking space per guest room for bed and breakfasts with five or more guest rooms and to eliminate the minimum parking requirement for home occupations. Ms. Nathanson asked what the motion was attempting to achieve: was it a space for every room, or to decrease the impact on neighborhood streets? Ms. Bettman said that her intent was to protect the less intense residential development of R-1 and R-2 zones from the creation of parking lots, a more intense use. Ms. Taylor believed that a conditional use permit was needed to protect neighborhood livability. She said that in some places in Eugene there was no on-street parking, and even a two-bedroom bed and breakfast would be a nuisance to the neighbors if it was full all the time. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Meisner said that both the reasons suggested by Ms. Nathanson were relevant to the issue. He said that even a four-guest bed and breakfast in an R-2 zone had some impact. He agreed with Mr. Farr that a bed and breakfast operator intending to operate on a sustained basis would make every effort to make parking available and convenient for guests. He thought that four vehicles for a smaller bed and breakfast operation was probably not an unreasonable impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Meisner said that streets were not for vehicle storage, and he did not want large bed and breakfasts in the R-3 and R-4 zones to rely on the City streets for parking. He concurred with Ms. Bettman's concern that front yards would be converted to parking. Ms. Childs said that ten years ago the City had done a study of bed and breakfasts in the community and made several changes in the code because of concerns about large-scale bed and breakfasts in the R-1 and R-2 zones, resulting in the reduction of the number of allowed guest rooms. She said that those changes generally addressed the issue of neighborhood impact, and she believed the parking requirement was a holdover from older requirements and was not necessary as a minimum requirement given the scale of the use. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to amend Table 9.2740 Residential Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements to require a conditional use permit for bed and breakfast facilities in R-1 and R-2. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Farr, Mr. PapS, and Mr. Kelly voting no. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding item (f) on the Consent Calendar, Ms. Bishow said it clarified that off-street parking was prohibited in required front-yard setbacks. The City would allow parking in the setback in a driveway leading to a garage. She said that houses with already established parking in the front-yard setback were not complying with the current code. Mr. Pap8 asked what would occur if the parking was legally created before, for example, a property annexed. Ms. Bishow said that if the parking complied with land use laws in effect at the time of construction, the use was a legal nonconforming use and would be grandfathered in. Mr. Farr asked how the City would enforce the code regulations the council was now considering given the current lack of money for enforcement. Ms. Bishow said that after the council completed its revisions, staff would return with a cost impact analysis and assist the council in a review of tradeoffs and choices as they related to staffing requirements. Mr. Rayor did not perceive clear standards and objectives that could be reviewed at the Permit and Information Center as adding significant costs, as opposed to regulations that the City was required to confirm compliance with in the field. Ms. Bishow responded that to the degree the City increased or broadened its range of regulations, there were additional staff resources needed to ensure compliance, no matter how clearly the code was written or whether the review required field work. Ms. Bettman said that as the council looked at ways to change zoning and allowable uses within the urban growth boundary, it needed to establish some things to maintain livability and walkability. She cited Jefferson Street as an example of a street where additional parking for secondary dwellings had been accommodated in the front yard or the setback. She was concerned that as more secondary dwellings were allowed, without an outright prohibition, paving of front and back yards would become more of an issue. Mr. Farr said that he understood those MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 5 Work Session concerns, but pointed out many people operated outside the permit process and that would probably be where enforcement issues arose. Mayor Torrey expressed a concern that there were many items on the Consent Calendar that residents were not sure about in terms of their impact. He asked if the residents had another opportunity to speak to the many changes that had been suggested by the council. Ms. Bishow said final action was tentatively scheduled for December 11 without an additional public hearing. She said that the council could choose to hold another public hearing and postpone adoption. Ms. Childs suggested that residents with concerns contact Ms. Bishow. Ms. Bishow noted that staff would prepare a document showing how the code was changed from the April 2000 draft and explain the reasons for the change. There would be some time for people to examine that information before the council adopted it. Mr. Meisner noted that he continued to be contacted by constituents urging further changes to the code. Ms. Bettman concurred. She said that the mayor's remarks about residents' uncertainty about the impact of the code were true, and the same could be said of the City itself. She suggested that was a part of the process, and there would be a period of time during which the community adjusted to the new code. Mr. Pap~ anticipated a process during which the council would review the results of the code's initial implementation in the future. Mr. Farr said that Mayor Torrey made a good point. He said that a majority of residents in the community had no clue about what was going in with the update or the changes being made and how they will affect them. He said that the council would hear from people when they begin to be affected. He said that it was possible the council could anticipate a backlash. Ms. Taylor wanted to see the cost analysis described by Ms. Bishow to be forwarded to all neighborhood organizations and then be the subject of a public hearing. Mr. Kelly said that whether the council adopts the update now or in the future, it would not fully know its impact until people started to use the new code. He did not think one hearing or several hearings would bring the council closer to completion of the update. He acknowledged that the council would need to do more fine-tuning of the code. Mr. Meisner did not think the council needed to hold another public hearing on the council's revisions. He expressed the wish that there was an executive summary that showed the residents illustrations of what was being adopted, similar to the Visual Preference Survey report produced by the Lane Council of Governments. Mayor Torrey asked staff to prepare the steps the council would need to take to address an unintended consequence that was discovered a week after adoption, and the time line for those steps. Ms. Bishow referred the council to two motions addressing solar standards prepared by staff in response to the council's previous discussion, one calling for addition of a work program item related to establishment of a green points program and the other amending the code by incorporating testimony submitted by Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) in May 2000. She MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 6 Work Session reminded the council that there were staff impacts associated with passage of the second motion as the initial intent of the update was to streamline the regulations to the degree possible. Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer said that staff supported the concept of the City moving toward a green points program but that required a great deal of staff work and community discussion. In terms of the existing solar provisions, those were crafted some time ago in context of the current zoning code. He believed the council would be ill- advised to carry over the elements of the solar provisions as they were currently reflected in the code. Mr. Farmer said that the provisions did not typically have much of an impact on single- level homes but did impact houses of two or more stories. As the community moved toward smaller housing lots, did more in the way of tree protection, and attempted to reduce impervious surfaces, the City did not want to find itself in a situation where more single-story houses were built because of the solar provisions. Mr. Farmer said that staff would try to point out the unintended consequences from the changes suggested by EWEB. Mr. Fart thanked Mr. Farmer for his statements. He was concerned about both solar access and about the City's conflicting standards and directives. He said that strict enforcement of the solar access standards appeared to work against increased densification, a City goal. Another example of conflict was rear garage access, which increased impervious paved areas. Mr. Farr was confident that as long as the council allowed staff to offer its input, it would be moving in the right direction. Ms. Bettman said she was not striving to achieve as much density as possible and did not think that was the City's objective. She thought the objective was sufficient densification to support transit and preserve the urban growth boundary through efficient use of land. For that reason, she thought preserving the solar standards was a good idea because it gave people living in the city an opportunity to garden, enjoy sunlight, and have access to solar as an alternative energy source. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the nature of a list distributed to the council which identified changes to the existing solar provisions that EWEB found acceptable, Mr. Farmer clarified that the list kept all existing provisions in place, with the exception of the changes proposed through the update that EWEB was in agreement with. Ms. Bishow added that EWEB was not advocating for change in general but were willing to support some of the Planning Commission- recommended changes in recognition of the tradeoffs that Mr. Farmer discussed. Mr. Rayor said he felt good about the current solar standards but he recognized the tradeoffs. He believed EWEB did a good job of submitting testimony but not much of what it wanted was incorporated into the update. He questioned whether there was something that EWEB could recommend related to the tradeoffs Mr. Farmer discussed, acknowledging that in some cases it was unlikely both trees and solar access could be preserved. Mr. Farmer said that staff was more comfortable with the Planning Commission-recommended solar standards than the current standards or the motion before the council. He said that the commission recommendations represented a balance between competing needs, and appropriate solar access protection for the community. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to discuss an example commission recommendation to which EWEB objected. Ms. Bishow responded that the Planning Commission had recommended that MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 7 Work Session subdivisions that achieved at least 70 percent of the maximum allowed density be exempted from the solar lot provisions. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to direct the City Manager to add a future work program item to bring back a solar access green points program that balances intensification of use with continued solar access as a natural amenity and sustainable energy source. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0 (Mr. Meisner being out of the room at the time the vote was taken). Mr. Rayor moved, seconded Ms. Bettman, to direct the City Manager to amend the code to maintain the present solar access provisions, with changes acceptable to EWEB in testimony submitted in May 2000. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Bishow explained that under the current code, if a development could not attain the density the developer proposed, it was exempt from the solar lot standards. She said that staff did not want to be in the position of redesigning subdivisions to demonstrate to developers they could achieve the desired density and comply with the solar lot standards. Mr. Rayor said he was trying to find a middle ground between EWEB's position and the commission's position. He suggested that perhaps there could be a compromise establishing a threshold number of solar lots for subdivisions. Mr. Pap8 asked if it was possible that tree preservation requirements could hinder a developer's attempt to achieve higher densities. Ms. Bishow said yes. The code already contained provisions to exempt lots that were heavily forested because the shade prevented the use of solar energy. She did not know if there would be conflicts between the tree preservation standards being established for subdivisions and solar standards. Mr. Pap8 thought EWEB had done a good job of advocating its point of view. He thought, however, that the Planning Commission had done a good job of sorting through the issues and had considered the entire range of issues involved, not just solar energy. Mr. Kelly said that if the motion passed, many new subdivisions would retain the solar lot standards and there would be no opportunity for what he termed the density bonus now in the draft. Mr. Farmer concurred with Mr. Kelly's statement. Mr. Kelly said that he had wrestled with the issue at great length. The code was a balancing act and he was concerned that the City would lose opportunities to achieve densities that were supportive of transit if it overlaid the current solar requirements on top of that. Given the amount of work done by the commission and staff, he was prepared to accept the commission's recommendations. He did not think the council had a sense of how the motion on the floor would impact a variety of related issues. Ms. Nathanson noted the many conflicting values underlying the issue before the council. If she had to pick between values, she thought that it was most appropriate the council be more concerned with community development as a whole rather than with individual households. She believed solar access largely impacted individual households. While she still thought that was critical because of the cost of energy, she believed the council needed to be more directly concerned with the larger range of issues. Ms. Nathanson would have preferred to defer to EWEB, but did not think it possible in this case. She said the Planning Commission tried to MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 8 Work Session balance solar access with other community values to reach its recommendations. Ms. Nathanson opposed the motion. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Papa's remarks. He said he attended some of the commission's discussions on the topic and thought it had done an extraordinary job in balancing values. He did not believe the present code with the changes suggested by EWEB fit well with the remainder of the draft code. Mr. Meisner asked about the time line for the green points program. Ms. Childs said that staff would provide that information to the council at a future work session. She envisioned a five-year implementation process. Mr. Meisner noted the long time the update had taken to reach this point and said the City had lost four years of opportunity to improve the quality of development that occurred in the community. He thought the solar standards recommended by the commission were an improvement, and he believed the commission worked hard to represent many points of view. He opposed the motion. Ms. Bettman thought that much development would occur before the City established a green points program and feared the City would have difficulty imposing new standards on a development community that was not used to complying with such standards. She said that solar was a natural resource. She thought the commission recommendations took a blanket approach to the issue. Ms. Bettman said while solar access might have to be sacrificed to accommodate other interests, that would only be true in some cases. She suggested that alternatively, staff be directed to develop a trigger point for adherence to solar criteria for Iow- density subdivisions. If a development met a certain set of community objectives related to mixed use and density, the commission's recommendations could be implemented, otherwise the stricter EWEB standards would apply. Mr. Rayor agreed with Ms. Bettman. He said that he had brought the issue forward because he thought that EWEB needed to have the discussion. He supported a threshold trigger for the solar standards. Ms. Taylor said that she had heard a great deal from constituents about the issue. She considered solar access to be a quality of life issue. Ms. Taylor supported the motion. Ms. Nathanson wondered where in the community the commission's recommendations would be of most benefit as opposed to EWEB's recommendations. How much was the City doing by adopting one approach versus the other? Was it losing density versus losing relatively little solar access? Mr. Farmer responded that the commission had discussed density as a way to save energy. Solar access, if houses were designed to take advantage of it, was another way to save energy. The commission was attempting to provide an appropriate level of solar access while achieving transit-supportive density. Ms. Nathanson said that the City could help people save energy costs for transportation or help save energy costs for heating buildings, and sometimes both. Mr. Farmer concurred. He noted that multi-story buildings were typically more energy efficient than single story buildings. Mr. Farmer reported that staff was in the process of beginning the initial staff work on a green points program. He said that staff intended to cooperate with EWEB on the program. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Bettman moved to amend the motion by directing the City Manager to include a provision in the code which triggered EWEB's provisions below a certain density level. Ms. Bettman explained that anything below the trigger must comply with the EWEB provision; anything above the trigger was subject to the commission's recommendations. Ms. Childs indicated that if the amendment was adopted, the result would be two sets of solar standards in the code. Mr. Farmer believed that staff could write code to implement the motion, however. The motion to amend died for lack of a second. The motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Rayor, and Ms. Taylor voting yes. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Rayor, to direct the City Manager to have staff work with EWEB to identify a density trigger point below which staff would return with standards from the existing code that did not find their way into the commission recommendations. Mr. Fart believed that many of EWEB's recommendations could be addressed by a green points program. He questioned how a single set of solar standards could be applied over Eugene's varying terrain. Mr. Farmer said that solar access regulations worked better in some places of the community than in others. Mr. Fart believed it would be too confusing to establish two sets of standards and hoped that some of Ms. Bettman's concerns were addressed by the green points program. Mr. Kelly said that the draft did contain some triggers, like the fact solar standards only apply in the R-1 and R-2 zones. There were shadings within those zones as well. If the effect of the motion was to direct staff to consult with EWEB to determine under what circumstances particular provisions should be waived, he could support it. However, if the intent of the motion was to ensure that elements of the existing code were carried forward, that would result in two sets of standards and he could not support that. Mr. Rayor said he hoped that the result of the motion was an easy-to-understand table. The motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Rayor, and Ms. Taylor voting yes. Ms. Nathanson clarified that the council was trading one set of solar standards for another, and was not eliminating solar standards. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to direct the City Manager to amend Section 9.6410(3) to include C-2, with some adjustments for scale. After clarifying with the maker the intent of the motion, Mr. Kelly indicated support. He said that if a use was so small as to require just a few parking spaces, its presence in the C-2 zone as opposed to the C-1 zone did not seem to make much difference. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 10 Work Session Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Ms. Bishow did not think the provision would be used frequently because businesses preferred to have more off-street parking than there was demand for. She said that there could be some neighborhood on-street parking impacts depending on the scale of development, or an impact on nearby business parking. Ms. Childs clarified that the motion would not preclude the construction of off-street parking. She agreed with a statement from Mr. Farr that the City would be providing business with more options. Mr. Meisner asked what would happen if the use in question changed to a more intense C-2 use without a change in the building. In the absence of a business licensing program, was there a way to trigger a requirement for additional parking? Mike McKerrow of the Planning and Development Department said there was no process that triggered a requirement for additional parking if no permits were being sought. Mr. Rayor asked for information about the provision in the update (Table 9.6410) that indicated a parking reduction of up to 25 percent of the minimum requirement was allowed as a right of development. Ms. Bishow termed it an innovative tool the City was using to encourage property owners to construct less parking than the required minimum. Mr. Rayor said he would oppose the motion because C-2 development sites were typically three to five acres in size, as opposed to C-1, which was smaller in size and served a more local area. He thought parking turnover was higher for C-1 uses than for C-2 uses and potentially had less neighborhood impact. Mr. Rayor had a difficult time contemplating how the motion would be implemented in shopping centers, such as Oakway Mall, with many stores in a C-2 zone. Ms. Bettman said that the Oakway Mall was a good example. A new use in that mall's parking lot could share parking with the existing uses, as long as those uses were willing. Ms. Nathanson distinguished between a business located in a consolidated development and a business in a street-front situation. In the case of the consolidated development, parking was shared parking through a business arrangement. She suggested that what was flexibility in the eyes of one owner could be unauthorized use of a parking lot in the eyes of another business owner. Ms. Nathanson was concerned that the motion could lead to business-to-business disputes. Responding to Ms. Bishow's suggestion that the provision would likely be used infrequently, Ms. Nathanson envisioned a situation where a start-up business on a tight budget would attempt to find a way to locate customer parking without incurring the expense of constructing parking. The motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Farr voting yes. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to direct the City Manager to amend Section 4.290(3) of the \ND Nodal Development overlay zone and Section 9.4530(6) of the \TD Transit Oriented overlay zone, to increase from 40 percent to 60 percent the amount of the site frontage abutting the street that must be occupied by a building in order for parking to be located at the rear or sides of the building. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 11 Work Session Ms. Bettman explained that her intent was to increase the percentage of building frontage along the street and eliminate text allowing a portion of that frontage to be occupied by enhanced pedestrian space. Responding to a request for comment from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Bishow diagramed an example situation illustrating the impact of the motion on a development. She said that there would be more building along the site frontage and more parking in the rear. Mr. Fart believed the impact of the motion would be to make people less likely to install pedestrian enhancements along the abutting street. He asked for an example of where a building now occupied 40 percent of the site. Ms. Bishow said that typically, commercial buildings tended to occupy less than half the available site frontage because the parking area was usually in the front of the building. The motion was an effort to further transition the appearance of the street so that buildings were closer to the front. She said the council needed to decide whether to start incrementally as recommended by the commission, or move immediately to a full 60 percent frontage requirement. Mr. Kelly supported the philosophical intent behind the motion but had questions. For example, what did the phrase "abutting the street" mean? He pointed out that some developments had creative, angled frontages and asked if those frontages would be considered to be abutting the streets. Ms. Childs said that those frontages would be considered to abut the streets if one could not park a car in front of the building. Mr. Kelly questioned the impact of dropping the opportunity for realizing enhanced pedestrian space. Those amenities went beyond park benches and included plazas, arcades, sheltered or recessed entries, outdoor cafes, and courtyards. He asked how the elimination of those amenities enhanced the pedestrian feel of the block and pointed out that their provision would also push parking to the rear of a structure. Ms. Bettman responded that the provision would only apply in transit and nodal areas. The City had certain objectives it wished to achieve in those areas. There would still be 40 percent of the streetscape to use for driveways, which she hoped to narrow, and for pedestrian amenities. Ms. Bettman said that it was conventional wisdom that locating buildings on the site frontage enhanced the safety and attractiveness of the pedestrian and encouraged walking and transit use. Mr. Pap~ asked about the practical impact of the motion because he believed it could call the affordability of a development into question, leading to the location of that development elsewhere. He said the City should develop incentives encouraging development to front on the street. He said that it appeared that if the development did not achieve 60 percent site frontage, parking would not be allowed behind, so where would it be? Ms. Bettman said that because development could not install parking in front, it would be required to meet the coverage requirement. Mr. Pap~ suggested the possibility the City could lose the development. Ms. Bettman said that the City was establishing different criteria for development in the nodal and transit areas because it had different objectives to achieve. Mr. Pap~ said he did not think the City could force economics. Mr. Rayor said the intent of the motion was good but he pointed out that the current code gave developers the option to cover 40 percent or more of the site frontage. He suggested that the frontage covered by 40 percent could be two-story and the frontage extending to 60 percent could be single story. He said that there could be issues related to narrow lots. In addition, he MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 12 Work Session suggested the result could be one-story development with a cut-out because 60 percent coverage was a lot. Ms. Childs expressed some confusion about the statement in the motion indicating that 60 percent of the site frontage must be occupied by a building for parking to be allowed at the rear or sides of the building because it was her understanding that was where the council wanted parking located. Regarding the increase from 40 percent to 60 percent, she said she was less concerned about that given the council's revisions to the floor area ratios (FAR) in the \TD areas. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the text to which Ms. Childs referred was in the current code. Ms. Bishow said that the motion was a strong mandate to do side and rear parking in the \ND and \TD zones. Ms. Nathanson was not comfortable proceeding with the motion because she did not have enough information about the calculations involved. She diagramed an example and questioned how it would work for driveway clearances, access, sight lines, and turnaround space. Ms. Bettman suggested that an exemption could be included in the code to address situations where driveways would affect the percentage of site frontage coverage. She suggested that the adjustment review process was another opportunity to adjust the percentage of site frontage coverage if a development met the intent, but not the specific criteria, of the code. Ms. Bettman added that 40 percent site frontage coverage in the \ND and \TD zones did not seem adequate to her. Mr. Meisner wanted to support the motion but wanted to ensure that it achieved the desired results. He suggested that the motion be amended to indicate that 60 percent of the site frontage would be occupied by a building and enhanced pedestrian space provided no more than a certain percentage, such as 20 percent, be the enhanced pedestrian space. Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly accepted Mr. Meisner's suggestion as a friendly amendment. Ms. Childs said that staff would follow-up by developing the appropriate text. The motion then read ':.. 60 percent of the site frontage abutting the street (excluding required interior yards) with up to 20 percent of that 60 percent allowed in enhanced pedestrian spaces." Mr. Fart found the amended motion more acceptable than the original motion, but also shared Ms. Nathanson's concerns regarding driveway clearances and sight lines. Mr. Kelly asked staff if Ms. Bettman's statement that adjustment review process could provide a mechanism to address concerns about sight lines and driveway width was true. Ms. Childs said that the mechanism existed but she did not recall if there was an adjustment for those issues in the process at the current time. Mr. Kelly suggested that the safety issue could be addressed at a broader level by full-site frontage and alley access to parking lots at the rear of the structure. Mr. Pap~ suggested that the goal of the motion could be achieved over time by requiring any off- street parking to be a certain distance from the street and a certain degree of pedestrian amenities. He though that the motion could be economically problematic for some developers. Ms. Nathanson said she liked the idea of increasing building frontage along the street and putting parking in back, but continued to be concerned that the math worked out and the result was not additional expense for a property owner who happened to be located on, for example, an 85-foot frontage as opposed to a 100-foot frontage. She asked staff to return with something workable after it received the council's general direction. Ms. Bishow agreed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 13 Work Session The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Fart and Mr. Pap~ voting no. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct the City Manager to amend Section 9.5500(12)(b) to enhance pedestrian safety and convenience by reducing the required driveway width. Mr. Kelly supported the motion and suggested staff look to the alley access guidelines for direction. Ms. Nathanson supported the intent of the motion. She asked if the existing driveway standard was based on engineering standards. Ms. Bishow was unsure. Mr. Farmer said that consultation with engineering staff indicated that the driveways could be narrowed, and staff would return to the council with suggested widths. Mr. Fart clarified that the motion did not apply to R-1 zoned property and single-family homes. Ms. Childs concurred. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by KimberlyYoung) MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 14 Work Session