CC MInutes - 10/30/00 Work Session

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Economic Diversification--Policy Item Motions Mr. Fart, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the I-1 zone to better promote uses that will help diversify the economy by refining the purpose of I-1 and the list of industrial and office uses permitted. Amend Table 9.2450 to clarify that large offices are permitted provided that they do not serve the general public, except on an incidental basis, and that the development site is planned or developed to ensure at least 50 percent of the total ground floor square footage will be in industrial use. Also amend Table 9.2450 to add a new section titled, "Information Technology Services" and allow uses to be permitted in I-1. Reinstate the allowance of Business Parks in I-1 as one way to ensure the appropriate mix of office and industrial use and to allow the same commercial support uses as in I-2. Such commercial support uses will be limited to 15 percent of the total floor area. Mr. Kelly said that one of the motivations for establishing the I-1 zone was economic diversification. Because of that, he wanted to continue to provide a variety of permitted uses to promote that diversification. He also wanted to clarify it the draft code in terms of office uses related to manufacturing. He also wanted to explicitly acknowledge somewhere in the code the desirability of new economy or new technology uses. Mr. Kelly said that the code should recognize those uses as new industrial uses. He also did not want to inadvertently turn the I-1 zone into an entirely office zone. Mr. Meisner requested clarification of what was meant by a "large office." Ms. Bishow said the term was not defined in the code. There was no minimum square footage requirement for a new office building. If the motion passed, staff would draft new code language. Mr. Farmer indicated that staff understood the intention of the motion but he thought the math as presented in the motion did not work out. He said that staff would revise the code if the motion passed to reflect the council's intent so the zone did not become an office zone. Regarding the 50 percent of total ground floor square footage called for in the motion, Mr. Kelly explained that it was directed at the office allowance, not at the so-called information technology service use. One could have a five-story information technology services firm without impacting the percent of office space. He said that he and Mr. Fart were interested in seeing some level of industrial use required in the zone, and was comfortable with stating his intent that the goal was for limiting office uses outside the information technology services category. The code would be structured so that one did not "over-office" the industrial zones. Mr. Fart asked what the problem was with more offices on a smaller footprint, even if it exceeded 50 percent of the total square footage of building space. Mr. Farmer said that by the time one provided the parking required for office use, the land area dedicated to the office use would be quite considerable. Ms. Bishow indicated that she had misunderstood the intent of Mr. Kelly and Mr. Fart; if she had understood the land area needed to do comparable office space versus industrial space, she would probably have suggested a significantly lower percentage, such as 20 to 25 percent, so the industrial user could compete fairly in the market for the land. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 30, 2000 Page 11 Work Session