Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pap~ arrived at the meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner expressed concern about the potential for a proliferation of C-1 uses near <br />intersections. He did not want to see the provision abused, and was not sure how the Iocational <br />criteria helped. He asked how uses could be limited. Ms. Bishow thought it could be difficult <br />since the CUP process was focused on compatibility, and the location of an adjacent commercial <br />use could be used as an argument in favor of an additional commercial use next door. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that a few examples would help her think about the issue. She believed that <br />the point of the motion was to encourage residential access to transit and neighborhood <br />commercial uses, but she did not think the Iocational criteria helped. She said that if the point <br />was to maintain density and residential uses, perhaps a percentage basis or allowance of such <br />uses when a certain number of dwelling spaces were located on a block. Ms. Nathanson <br />suggested that the council give the staff some basic direction rather than attempting to craft a <br />solution now. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart was uncertain about the motion. He said that he was assuming the motion would allow <br />for commercial development on the ground floor of a structure with housing on the second floor. <br />Ms. Bishow concurred. She said that if the council's goal was to retain the residential density <br />use on a property it should be explicit about that in the code. Otherwise, Ms. Bishow said, the <br />passage of the motion could have a big impact on certain areas in the community. Mr. Fart <br />thought there was value to having such commercial developments within residential districts, <br />saying it would not happen if a use was not a viable commercial enterprise. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not support the motion. She said that much of the existing areas zoned R-2 <br />zoning was converted housing and mixed uses, and she wanted to prevent further such <br />conversions. She said that she could support the motion if it required a residential use on the <br />second storey, or if applied to new development only. Ms. Bettman said that she had seen <br />residentially zoned property in her neighborhood become commercial or general office through <br />the CUP process, and it seemed to occur at the convergence of intersections. While that was <br />good in that it provided transit access to those uses, the motion did not address that issue and <br />threatened already existing housing stock. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor suggested that the Iocational criterion be deleted from the motion and that it conclude <br />with the phrase "and other parameters recommended by staff." Mr. Kelly and Mr. Meisner <br />accepted the revision as a friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner questioned whether the motion was a way of requiring second storey residential in <br />existing neighborhoods. He said that many of the existing neighborhoods were not well- <br />developed and were designed for auto use only and it resulted in sprawl. Mr. Meisner said he <br />would like to see Eugene neighborhoods have small commercial uses to serve residents. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked staff if there was some way to allow the conversion of residences near an <br />intersection to commercial uses if that use was associated with development of adjacent <br />multiple-family housing, or if the City should consider allowing such situations. That could <br />increase density on the block and provide for neighborhood commercial uses. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked staff to consider restrictions on the hours of operation for neighborhood <br />commercial uses. Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer said that <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2000 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />