Laserfiche WebLink
The motion carried unanimously, 5:0. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend the code to add the new "Information Technology Services" (ITS) <br /> category with a list of permitted uses in commercial zones, consistent with <br /> other office-style uses in commercial zones. Retain the size limitation at <br /> 9.2161(1) for C-1. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor returned to the discussion regarding motorcycles, speaking about the use as being <br />"homeless" and said that he saw this as being a similar issue. He asked if adding this to the <br />code or adding it to the definition would make more sense. He said that he supported the motion <br />but wondered if expanding the definition, rather than expanding the table, would have the same <br />effect. He asked staff to consider adding new uses as definitions through administrative rule, <br />rather than code amendments. Ms. Bishow said that she concurred that the Land Use Code <br />could not try to identify all emerging businesses. However, she suggested that if there was a <br />choice to regulate a business differently, then there should be a separate category. She said that <br />staff will look carefully at which uses are placed in it. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested that industry people in the ITS businesses be contacted as staff considers <br />this change. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor noted that if a definition was added, it would be clearer to identify what the table says <br />is conditional, permitted, or not allowed uses. He said that while he supported the motion, he <br />was not clear of the intent of the motion. He asked if the intent was to fit the list of uses under <br />"administrative, general and professional offices." Ms. Bishow said that some of them might be <br />because they operate in that type of environment. She said that it could be argued that e- <br />commerce companies are selling and trading goods, so is that retail or office? If these uses are <br />added to the code, under a new broad category of ITS there will be more clarity as to where they <br />are permitted and less need for staff interpretation. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend Table 9.2170 to increase the maximum allowed building height in C-1 <br /> from 35 feet to 50 feet except for buildings within 50 feet of AG, R-1 or R-2 <br /> zoned property. Clarify this new standard by amending section 9.2171. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that she would vote against the motion because she felt there was already <br />limited C-1 zoned property and that the purpose of C-1 was to serve the surrounding <br />neighborhood. She said that a building height of 50 feet was not appropriate for C-1. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that he would also oppose the motion. He said that C-1 zoned property was a <br />limited resource. Although the motion was stated in general terms, the language was taken from <br />a specific property owner's request from the Willakenzie area. Mr. Kelly referenced the <br />Willakenzie Neighborhood Plan, saying that the intention of such zoning was to serve <br />neighborhood needs. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that the would oppose the motion, concurring with the comments by Ms. <br />Bettman and Mr. Kelly. He asked further about the location of C-1 versus GO zoning. Ms. <br />Bishow said that she was not sure if the siting, in general, was more or less C-1 or GO <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 1, 2000 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />