Laserfiche WebLink
surrounded by R-1 and R-2 zones. She noted that there are neighborhoods in the city which are <br />planned for high density uses. Ms. Bishow said that Ms. Bettman was correct that it would be <br />appropriate to have neighborhood services in scale with surrounding neighborhoods. However, <br />she questioned why one would limit the commercial facilities to 30 feet in height if the <br />surrounding neighborhood has eight to ten stow buildings, which is possible. Mr. Meisner <br />concurred with the staff assessment. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner posed a follow-up question, asking what the "current" standards were for GO zoning. <br />Mr. Jacobson responded said that the existing height for GO was 45 feet, unless it is adjacent to <br />residential zone; then the height restriction was 25 feet. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that while there was some merit to this proposal, he would vote against the <br />motion. He suggested that this be a future work item or there needs to be a better idea of how <br />there could be a blending GO graduated height scale, so that there was not a precedent for <br />doing this. Mr. Jacobson said that there was currently a graduated scale in the GO zone. Mr. <br />Rayor said that such uses should not overshadow the neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if there was less GO land than C-1 land. Ms. Bishow noted that a map was <br />available which would show the various zoning areas. Ms. Bettman said that the only way she <br />would support this motion was if the upper two or three stories were housing. Mr. Jacobson <br />showed the GO designated lands on a large map. Adjoining zones appeared to be primarily R-3, <br />C-2, or C-3. Mr. Jacobson also showed the C-1 zoned areas on the map. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said his concern was not the height compatibility, but getting uses in the C-1 zone which <br />would support services for the surrounding area. He said that he would support allowing a higher <br />building height for C-1 if it were part of a node, for example. Ms. Bettman noted that there was <br />already a work program item to look at ways to encourage residential uses above commercial. <br />Mr. Kelly said that he would oppose this motion and invite staff to present tools which might <br />encourage residential above commercial property. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner concurred with the comments of Mr. Kelly. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that she believed that there may be some new C-1 zones created, which would <br />serve neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked for clarification of the 50 feet restriction. Ms. Bishow responded that the portion <br />of the development site within 50 feet of AG, R-l, or R-2 would have the lower height limit of 35 <br />feet. She said there were examples of developments that had the portion of the building within <br />50 feet of the property line as a three-stow height, backed by four and five stow portions of the <br />building farther away. <br /> <br />Mr. Torrey suggested that the councilors who were not present could come to one of those <br />present to ask for a reconsideration. <br /> <br /> The motion failed unanimously, 5:0. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend the code to clarify uses permitted in the various zones and to make <br /> other conforming amendments to address public testimony and broad policy <br /> direction of the City Council. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 1, 2000 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />