Laserfiche WebLink
In response to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding where Option 2 applied, Ms. Bishow said <br />that, as the option was written, it would apply to all property in commercial areas zoned C-1, C-2, <br />or C-3. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow said that if the council wanted flexibility and yet a requirement of commercial use <br />within a building, she said that it should pass option 1 amended such that it did not specify <br />ground floor commercial but required 25 percent of the structure to be commercial. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to allow residential uses in C-1, C- <br /> 2, and C-3 zoned areas, provided that at least 25 percent of the structure <br /> was used for commercial or non-residential uses. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman was in favor of the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner commented that the motion did not require residential uses. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mayor Torrey regarding what the practical impact of the motion <br />would be to the available commercial land under State law, Ms. Bishow said that staff assumed <br />that a certain amount of residential development would occur in commercially zoned areas when <br />the inventory of needed commercial land was determined. She noted that the City had a long <br />history of promoting housing in the downtown area and other areas with commercial activity. <br />Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer added that it was difficult to get <br />financing for mixed-use development projects. He raised concern over the wording of the motion <br />since it would mandate that residential could only occur in structures that had a portion of the <br />building in commercial use. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly commented that the motion was turning into a bigger issue than he had intended. He <br />said that he was only trying to watch over the amount of available commercial land. He said that <br />the motion was prompted by the fact that the existing code allowed multiple-family housing in C- <br />1, C-2, and C-3 if the ground floor of the structure was in commercial use. He said that the rule <br />did not apply to row houses and duplexes and he wanted to have those uses allowed with the <br />same requirement for commercial use. <br /> <br />With the permission of the second, Mr. Kelly withdrew his motion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved that the same special use limitation <br /> in the code that currently applied to triplexes, fourplexes, and multi-family <br /> housing also apply to row housing and duplexes. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner commented that if the rule was applied to structure rather than to site the council <br />would have failed to address the issue. He expressed a desire to have the rule be site-based. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow suggested amending the code to require some level of commercial use on the <br />development site and consistency among the housing types. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly, with the permission of his second, withdrew his motion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the code to require some <br /> level of commercial use on a development site with consistency among <br /> housing types. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 20, 2000 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />