Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Torrey said that he would not support the main motion if called upon to vote. He said that <br />the point raised by Mr. Farr was well-taken. Retailers struggle for space against the wall, which <br />was the best place to display merchandise. He said that the result of the motion could be <br />windows against which merchandise was stacked, which was ugly. He supported Ms. <br />Nathanson's amendment. <br /> <br /> The motion as amended passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting no. <br /> The main motion as amended passed, 7:1; Mr. Farr voting no. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend the code to require the same 15-foot maximum building setback in C- <br /> 4 and GO as currently proposed for C-1, C-2, and C-3. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that the rationale for the motion was the same as for the previous motion. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bishow said that the setback was appropriate for <br />general office zoning. She would be concerned about applying the maximum building setback <br />standard to the C-4 zone in that there are a lot of I-2 light-medium industrial uses in the zone that <br />the City might not want next to the street. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 questioned the applicability of the motion to development in outlying areas bordering on <br />natural areas, saying that the building could be forced onto the street and the parking onto the <br />natural feature because of space restraints. Ms. Bishow said that the opposite could happen, <br />with the same detrimental results to the natural feature. She suggested that the design of the <br />parking lot and drainage could mitigate the issue. Mr. Pap8 asked if the code allowed the <br />developer the flexibility to make a choice in the location of the building and parking lot in terms of <br />where the natural feature was. Ms. Bishow indicated she would check. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson diagramed some design options for achieving a maximum building setback and <br />confirmed with staff her diagram was accurate. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not think the motion would affect the functionality of manufacturing uses in the <br />C-4 zone. The motion would affect the walkability and accessibility of the area, or what was seen <br />and experienced from the street. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly determined that Ms. Bettman was assuming that manufacturing uses in C-4 zones were <br />affiliated with an office or commercial use, and said that was not always the case; there could be <br />an I-2 manufacturing operation with no offices in the C-4 zone. <br />Ms. Taylor questioned what kind of manufacturing use should not be closer to the street. Mr. <br />Kelly suggested a chemical plant might not be appropriately located near a street. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Ms. Bishow said she continued to be concerned about a <br />new industrial use being built on vacant property that might have noise and air emissions and <br />questioned whether the council wanted that use directly along a sidewalk. She noted that the <br />council would have a chance to discuss the issue again. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs said that C-4 was applied to very few places in the city; it was a zone designed to <br />serve as a transition zone between commercial and industrial. She was unsure that there would <br />be many circumstances where a large new manufacturing operation was located in a C-4 zone. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 30, 2000 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />