Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 09/06/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall--Eugene, Oregon September 6, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Fart, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Items from Mayor, Council, and City Manager Ms. Taylor raised the issue of a contingency fund request to underwrite the costs of a City Councilor joimng a sister city delegation on an upcoming trip to Kathmandu, Nepal. She indicated interest in going on the trip if the council decided an official City representative should accompany the delegation. Mr. Fan: indicated support for Ms. Taylor's request and said he thought it was appropriate that Ms. Taylor accompany the delegation as the official council representative. He asked about the cost of the trip. Ms. Taylor said it was approximately $3,000. Mr. Fan: thought that was reasonable. City Manager Jim Johnson indicated that the funding would like be allocated from the contingency fund. Mr. Meisner objected to the expenditure due to budget constraints. He also did not think that the expenditure was related to the council's goals or financial policies. He thought it more appropriate that the cost be underwritten by private fund raising. Mr. Meisner noted that candidates for office, once elected, can use campaign funds for official travel. Mr. Kelly supported the Sister City Program and thought some level of official participation was appropriate; however, he was sensitive to the budgetary situation. He suggested that the City could provide a portion of the needed funds. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Pap~, to dedicate up to $1,500 in contingency funds for elected official travel with the Nepal delegation, with the balance to be raised from other sources. Mr. Papd called for future council discussion of sister city travel, the future of the Sister City Program, the budget for the program, and the number of sister cities that Eugene supported. Mayor Ton:ey indicated his support for the motion and said he was glad Ms. Taylor was willing to go. He said that if the City had sister city relationships, it was important a City representative accompanied delegations. He believed that not to send such a representative was a snub to the sister city. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 6, 2000 Page 1 Work Session Mayor Torrey raised the topic of the time allotted to speakers during the public hearing on the tobacco-related ordinances. He said that a tentative poll indicated the council was split on allotting three or two minutes to speakers. He asked councilors to indicate their preference. By a vote of 5:3, with Mr. Pap6, Mr. Fart, and Ms. Nathanson voting no, the council agreed to limit speakers at the September 11 public hearing to three minutes. 2.Land Use Code Update The council was joined by Planning Director Jan Childs, Land Use Code Update Project Manager Teresa Bishow, and Emily Jerome of the City Attorney's Office. Ms. Bishow noted the council's decisions to this point. She anticipated that the council's focus during the meeting would be completion of the traditional neighborhood development theme and various related topics. Ms. Bishow referred the council to the meeting packet, which included motions developed by staff in response to input from the council. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to direct the City Manager to change Street Connectivity Standards to allow flexible applications of street connectivity- with exemptions for environmental protection, neighborhood protection, and prevention of inappropriate volumes of traffic. Mr. Meisner observed that the exemptions seemed quite vague, citing specifically "neighborhood protection," and asked staff about the consequences of the motion, and in particular if staff would have difficulty with implementing the breadth of the exemptions for application. Ms. Childs responded that staff had provided information related to the three topic areas and existing street connectivity requirements. She said that if the council wanted to go beyond the existing exemptions and add the prevention of inappropriate volumes of traffic, she recommended that it give staff direction to develop clear and objective standards. Mr. Meisner said that he would oppose the motion as he thought the existing exemptions provided the protections Ms. Taylor sought. Mr. Kelly was concerned by the breadth of the motion and confused as to its intent, given that the current code already addressed them to some degree. Mr. Farr thought more flexibility in street connectivity was needed but he did not think the motion was the way to accomplish that. Ms. Taylor wanted to move the City away from a rigid interpretation of connectivity. She thought there were places where street connectivity was not good for the neighborhood. She said that there were streets in her neighborhood that had been closed by the City. Ms. Taylor said that if, for example, West Amazon Street were to be opened, it would be detrimental to the neighborhood because of its environmental and traffic volume impact. She was particularly concerned about street connectivity in established neighborhoods, rather than in new developments. Ms. Nathanson asked if it was the staff expectation that exemptions would be automatically granted. Ms. Bishow said that the code needed to include clear standards not requiring discretion about when exemptions were granted. Ms. Nathanson suggested that defining what would "ruin a neighborhood" would be difficult. Ms. Bishow said that staff would need direction on what kind of clear standard would be the benchmark for determining a broad concept of neighborhood protection. Ms. Nathanson pointed out to Ms. Taylor that new MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 6, 2000 Page 2 Work Session development was not likely to be isolated and would generally occur adjacent to other development, so street connectivity affected both old and new development. Ms. Childs said that she heard more concerns regarding the likelihood that street connectivity would lead to increased traffic volume than any other concern, and she believed that the list of exemptions could be expanded to address that concern. For example, she thought it appropriate to have an exemption if connectivity meant a local street became an arterial or collector street. Mr. Meisner said he was somewhat interested in the topic of traffic volumes on local streets, but believed that it would require some expertise and fine tuning to develop the appropriate exemption. In response to Ms. Taylor's comments, Mr. Meisner did not think the City could look at new development without considering redevelopment and the existing areas where there was considerable disconnection because of development patterns and topography. He said that disconnection made it difficult for emergency response to occur smoothly and for the City to achieve its goals in the areas of transportation and land use. Mr. Meisner understood that neighbors had fears about street connectivity and said that they often seemed unfounded. He asked if requirements for street connectivity were triggered by new development. Ms. Childs said yes. The motion failed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting yes. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to direct the City Manager to add exemptions to the street connectivity standards where projected new traffic volumes would exceed the range associated with the existing street classification, or when the existing street is unimproved and does not meet City street standards. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. McNeel clarified that systems development charge revenues were only available for funding improvements on streets that were arterial or collector streets. He suggested that the distinction for the council to consider was not whether roads were brought up to standard, but the condition of the roadway at the time of development. Mr. Meisner did not want the proposed exemption to be used to prevent connectivity. Mr. Kelly responded that he was attempting to address street condition and the challenge was how to state that objectively. He hoped that staff could develop some text for the council to review. Mr. Kelly also did not want to see the exemption used to prevent street connectivity, but did not want to insist on connectivity in spite of the condition of the road. Mayor Torrey left the meeting, and Council President Lee assumed the chair. Mr. Rayor did not support the motion, saying that when the council talked about limiting volume on local streets, it was also limiting bicycles and pedestrians when connectivity did not occur. Mr. Meisner concurred. Mr. Kelly pointed out that he would later offer a motion mandating bicycle and pedestrian connections where they otherwise might not occur, so he thought the two issues could be addressed separately. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Rayor and Mr. Pap~ voting no. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to direct the City Manager to change the code to require cull-de-sacs that are 150 feet in length or longer to provide emergency vehicle/bike/pedestrian connections extending from the bulb to the closest street. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 6, 2000 Page 3 Work Session Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Gary McNeel of Public Works Transportation said that the minimum width for two-way multi-use paths was 10 feet. Bollards could be installed to prevent daily traffic. Mr. Meisner supported the motion, pointing out that it provided for exemptions in certain cases. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Bishow confirmed that the motion would not be applicable to streets that would ultimately be connected when the intervening vacant land developed. Hammerheads and other type of dead-end situations would be covered by the motion. Responding to a question from Mr. Fart, Ms. Childs said that the motion would also not apply to circle streets with a single egress/ingress. Ms. Bishow said that staff would review the code language if the council approved the motion to be sure that the City was not requiring unnecessary connections. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Childs said she did not think the motion would have an impact on the City's street connectivity standards. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0 Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to direct the City Manager to change the /TD Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone to adjust the Floor Area Ratio to a number that would likely result in new development being at least two stories. Mr. Kelly said that it made no sense to him that new development in a transit-oriented area or node be single- story. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Childs clarified the current draft floor area ratios in the draft code. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Fart voting no. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to direct the City Manager to change the code to exempt lots with a/TD overlay zone that are less than 22,000 square feet from being required to provide landscaping between a surface parking area and the interior lot line. Mr. Kelly said that his motion was intended to address testimony regarding local lot sizes and double-lot development that exceeded the current draft code minimum. Mr. Meisner asked how many lots were involved. He said that the difference between the current minimum of 20,000 and 22,000 was not very significant, but both were about one-half acre. He was concerned that the City was now increasing the number of lots exempt from the landscaping requirements. Ms. Bishow said that the testimony was somewhat valid, but there was no single dominant lot size in the downtown/TD area. There were some lots that would be exempted from the interior parking lot landscaping requirements if the minimum size was increased. Ms. Nathanson said that she was concerned about the consequences of the motion on redevelopment and infill. She wanted to support compact development forms, increased activity, and increased density where appropriate, and did not want to enact regulations that discouraged those things from occurring. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 6, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked why the City would want to exempt lots from the landscaping requirement. Ms. Bishow responded that it was difficult to fit everything onto a smaller development site and make everything work. Developers had more design options for larger sites, and typically could accommodate landscape requirements more easily than on a small site. Ms. Nathanson cited a redevelopment project on the southeast comer of Willamette Street and 18th Avenue and noted here was no landscaping facing the street yet the building was quite attractive. Ms. Bishow said that in the absence of a parking lot expansion, no landscaping standards were imposed. Ms. Nathanson expressed disappointment that Albertsons had not taken advantage of its remodeling of its store on 18th Avenue to make improvements to the parking lot. Mr. Meisner asked the origin of the figure in the code and in the motion. Ms. Childs responded that staff looked to development of the original Transit Oriented overlay zone. At that time, staff had used the .65 floor area ratio to see what was left on the lot. She suggested that the council's action to increase the floor area ratio may obviate the issue to some degree. Mr. Meisner asked for an example of a downtown project on a 22,000 square foot lot. Staff provided the quarter-block occupied by the Heron Building as an example of a site slightly larger than 22,000 square feet. Mr. Kelly said he was persuaded to support the motion by the spreadsheets provided in testimony. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Rayor and Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to direct the City Manager to amend Map 9.6410(4)(a) Downtown and West University Automobile Parking Exempt Area to make the boundary the same as the outer boundary of Map 9.4530 Transit-Oriented Development Zoning Overlay. Mr. Meisner asked staffto discuss the consequences of passage of the motion. Ms. Childs said that the Planning Commission had extensive discussion of the issue and opted not to make the boundaries co- terminus because of concerns about the impact of that action on the existing residents from lack of parking. Mr. Meisner noted that the Ad hoc Committee on Greater Downtown Visioning discussed the need to better define the edges of downtown and had examined the area in question as a place where houses would not necessarily be protected, but density would not be as dense as downtown. He said given the City's interest in preserving the buffered ring of more dense housing around downtown while still preserving the character of the neighborhood, he supported the commission's reasoning in not making the boundary change. Mr. Fart supported the motion, pointing out that it did not preclude the provision of parking. Mr. Rayor opposed the motion because he believed it would put the City in the position of providing subsidized parking and it would dilute downtown. Mr. Kelly was unaware that the commission had discussed the issue. He said that he would defer to the commission's reasoning and vote against the motion. The motion failed, 6:1; Mr. Fart voting yes, and Ms. Nathanson being out of the room at the time the vote was taken. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 6, 2000 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct the City Manager to change the code to require a minimum overall residential density within/ND Nodal Development overlay zoned areas. Mr. Kelly explained that because the overlay zone was interim and interim could be a long time, he wanted to ensure that it would accomplish some of the City's goals for nodal development. He said that the current draft required a minimum density in a residential base zone, but if the base zone was commercial the result could be a node with no housing at all. He had no code language to suggest, but wanted to ensure that the nodes had some minimal amount of housing. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ about the impact of the motion on nodes in existing areas, Ms. Childs said she would have to think about the consequences of the motion. She added that the motion was consistent with the council's previous decision about ensuring all nodes have housing. Mr. Kelly encouraged staff to look to in-house and outside expertise as well as other jurisdictions to determine how the motion could be implemented. He did not want to preclude an existing use from being redeveloped, but he could see requiring housing or payment to a housing bank in the case of a large commercial redevelopment. Ms. Childs said that the motion would not affect small renovations or redevelopments. Mr. Fart wanted to facilitate residential development whenever possible, but he was concerned that the motion could severely limit legitimate development within a node. For that reason, he opposed the motion. The motion failed due to a 4:4 tie, Mr. Fart, Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Pap~, and Mr. Lee voting no. Mr. Meisner maintained that the council had just made a "huge" decision. Mr. Kelly agreed, saying that it left the City with nodes without housing. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to direct the City Manager to change the Nodal Development overlay zone to raise the minimum residential density required for new subdivisions, when the base zone is R-l, from 10 to 12 units per net acre. Mr. Kelly explained his motion was in response to testimony submitted to the council, and it represented a modest increase in density. Mr. Pap~ asked if the motion was specific to new development or existing development. Ms. Childs responded that the council would be asked later in the year to evaluate all the nodal areas identified in TransPlan to determine where the overlay zone and the Metro Plan nodal development designation should be applied. She was unsure how many areas the council would select. That process would determine what property received the zoning overlay. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Childs said that the code was written to allow for a minimum density based on the base zone. For new subdivisions of more than 10 lots, density would be increased from 10 units per acre to 12 units per acre. She confirmed that redevelopment would be treated the same. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 6, 2000 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Nathanson said that the Planning Commission had considered the issue and agreed on 10 units per acre. She asked about the net effect of the motion and what it achieved. Did an increase from 10 to 12 units significantly change the range of options for building types that the community would expect to see? Ms. Childs thought that the change might increase the range of building types because 12 units per acre called for small lots and created opportunities for attached dwellings and clustering. She thought the motion was consistent with the minimum lot sizes that the council would be considering in the future, particularly for R- 1. She added that a change in those lot sizes would affect the implementation of the motion. Ms. Nathanson questioned whether the requirement for increased density would decrease the chances the nodes were developed in a timely way. Ms. Bishow said that probably from the perspective of the Lane County Homebuilders Association, it would. At the current time, most subdivisions were in the range of 6 to 8 units per acre, and developers struggled to get 10 units per acre as these were needed to account for tree preservation, street connectivity, and other factors. She said that the Planning Commission agreed on 10 units per acre as a density goal. Ms. Bishow said that 12 units per acre was an ambitious goal. However, it was directly linked to the council's goals for urban growth. To maintain the urban growth boundary in place, the city would need to achieve density where and how it could. Ms. Bishow pointed out that the code could be revised if the density figure did not work. Mr. Jacobson offered the council the example of Lakeshore Estates, where all solar setback requirements had to be waived to accommodate a 1 O-unit per acre detached subdivision. Mr. Fart referred to Avalon Village, which had a mix of housing types on very small lots. He did not want to preclude such development. He said that developers were currently developing at more dense levels and he believed that they would develop at as high a density as possible, and that would be at 12 units per acre or higher in some cases. Mr. Farr opposed the motion. Mr. Kelly understood that the issues under discussion were addressed by the Planning Commission but said that his motions were a direct result of the testimony received by the elected officials. He said that resident Larry Shaw, who had been involved in Metro's land use planning, had offered the density number in his testimony. Mr. Kelly said that key to him was that the motion did not set a minimum density for R- 1 zones in general, only R-1 zones inside nodes. Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Kelly's comments. He said that he strongly got the sense from other members of the council that there would be a reduction in density requirements in other areas. There would be heavy pressure on the council to exempt existing neighborhoods from the proposed density requirements. He was concerned that the council would defeat its density goals if it defeated the motion. Mr. Farr pointed out that the defeat of the prior motion did not preclude housing in nodes. He did not believe that the future nodes would be predominantly oriented toward one use or another. He said that defeat of the motion also did not preclude developers from developing at a level of 12 units per acre. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Kelly said that he proposed 12 units per acre because he thought that the density was needed to support neighborhood commercial development. Ms. Childs clarified that there was evidence that indicated 12 units per acre was the minimum density needed to support transit service in a node; she thought that the number might need to be higher to make transit and commercial work. Mr. Pap6 suggested that a mix of zoning types in a node would help push the density up and meet the density target. Ms. Childs concurred, adding that the minimum density had been increased for the R-2, R-3, and R-4 MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 6, 2000 Page 7 Work Session zones. She said that the higher target could be important if an area in the node was predominantly low- density. Ms. Taylor supported the motion because she thought more density was needed to make nodes work and because she supported exempting existing neighborhoods from the proposed density requirements. She also thought it would result in a mix of housing types in a node. Mr. Fart believed that Avalon Village, developed without such a minimum, realized an overall density that was as high or higher than the proposed density of 10 units per acre. He said that developers were already voluntarily building at higher densities. He also thought requiring 10 units per acre provided developers with more flexibility than 12 units per acre. Mr. Kelly clarified that his motion would only be applicable to new development. He did not think Avalon Village in its entirety achieved the proposed density of 10 units per acre. Mr. Jacobson concurred. Mr. Meisner emphasized Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding the applicability of the motion to new development. He said that the nodes were the City's opportunity to achieve increased density. Mr. Meisner thought nodes were intended to be a "different species" than other developments. He said that if the City did not achieve density in the nodes, it would have to expand the urban growth boundary or force redevelopment on existing neighborhoods. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Rayor, Mr. Pap~, Mr. Fart voting no. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to direct the City Manager to change the Nodal Development overlay to allow an automatic 50 percent reduction in the required number of off-street parking spaces. Mr. Kelly noted that the current draft code allowed a 25 percent reduction in required off-street parking. He said that increasing the allowed minimum required parking spaces reduction would also encourage shared parking. Responding to a question from Mr. Fart, Ms. Childs clarified that the motion did not require the 50 percent reduction. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Rayor voting no. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct the City Manager to change the Nodal Development overlay zone to prohibit "parking areas" where an entire lot consists only of surface parking. Staff should explore allowing parking areas that explicitly serve multiple developments. Mr. Kelly explained that he wanted to include such a use in the list of prohibited uses. He said that he might be willing to allow such uses if they served more than one development. Ms. Nathanson asked if there was any reason to allow such parking. She thought that parking could be provided as a first floor under a building and it could be public parking, not just employee and customer parking. Ms. Childs responded that the commission had discussed the issue of parking in nodes at some length, with an initial focus on whether park and ride lots should be allowed. The commission determined MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 6, 2000 Page 8 Work Session that such lots should be prohibited unless it was shared parking. The commission did not want to tie up land in all-day surface parking. Ms. Childs said that the commission had not explicitly discussed a situation where there was a shared lot with high turnover. She said that if the motion passed, staff would want to look at shared options that might be available. Mr. Meisner thought shared parking made sense. However, he questioned whether adding a small structure, such as a restroom structure on a parking lot, would redefine that lot as not being totally surface parking. Ms. Bishow said that there would need to be a primary use on the development site if the motion passed, and the parking could be associated with that use in shared manner. Mr. Meisner said the use of the term "primary" made sense to him. He said that nodes were not intended to accommodate regional shopping but were intended to serve nearby residents, and parking was not needed if those residents walked or bicycled to the commercial uses in the node. Mr. Meisner supported the motion. Mr. Kelly clarified that the motion only applied to an entire development site. The required minim floor area ratio would help avoid the potential situation cited by Mr. Meisner. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Bishow said that Mr. Kelly's motion would prohibit stand alone parking lots on sites like the one across the street from City Hall. She said that in the absence of the motion, a developer could build at whatever scale met the floor area ratio on the site, divide it from the remainder of the property, and sell the remainder to a friend to develop as surface parking. Ms. Nathanson thought the concept in the motion was good but difficult to implement. She expressed concern about the use of the terms "primary" and "ancillary," and asked if those terms were defined by the code. Ms. Childs said that Ms. Bishow used the term "primary" in this case to distinguish parking as a primary use. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Rayor, Mr. Fart, Mr. Pap~ voting no. Pointing to the amount of time that the review of the Land Use Code was anticipated to take, Mr. Kelly asked that staff ensure that other items did not impinge on the time scheduled for council discussion. Mr. Fart and Mr. Pap~ left the meeting. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to extend the meeting to 7:45 p.m. Mr. Meisner asked that the council be notified in advance if meetings were to be extended. Mr. Johnson said that notice of the extended time was sent to the council the previous day. The motion passed, 5:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Rayor requested that staff provide the council with a brief paragraph regarding the implications of each motion. Mr. Kelly said that staff could indicate what would happen or not happen if the motion was adopted. He added that he had provided that information to the council in an e-mail message to the council in July, and suggested that such communication be included in the packet. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 6, 2000 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Kelly noted Mr. Fart's interest in the next motion (J) and suggested that the council postpone consideration until he could be present. He also believed that the next motion in the meeting packet (K) was addressed by passage of motion (H). Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to direct the City Manager to change the Nodal Development overlay zone to require a site review or similar requirement to be sure the development is consistent with the goals of the overlay zone. Mr. Kelly said that site review was a means to get additional examination of projects and would encourage public input. Ms. Bishow suggested a similar requirement would be a standards review rather than a more discretionary site review process that included consideration of compatibility. Mr. Meisner concurred. He said that his concern regarding site review was how to implement the motion on an individual site basis. For example, if there were 40 lots in the node being developed one at a time, the answer of consistency with the goals of nodal development was difficult to know. Ms. Childs suggested that the primary objective of the ND zone was that good things happened, e.g., higher density, and bad things, e.g., certain uses not desired in the node, did not. Given that development in nodes would be governed by clear and objective standards, she was unsure that site review was needed to ensure that occurred or that one gained much by a standards review application process. Ms. Nathanson said that given that standards existed, she did not see a need for site review. Ms. Bishow said that a standards review process would allow for neighborhood notice and citizen involvement in the process could make a difference in how the standards were interpreted, particularly in the first year or so following adoption. Mr. Kelly noted the formal process entitled Standards Review in Section 9.8460 of the code, and clarified that staff was proposing to apply that to the ND zone as an alternative to site review. He modified his motion to require a standards review as per that section instead of site review. Mr. Meisner, as second, accepted the modification. The motion passed, 6:0. Ms. Childs referred to an e-mail message Mr. Rayor sent to staff regarding the possibility of adding spacing and locational requirements for nodes. If the concept was accepted, Ms. Childs explained, the code would be modified with locational criteria for the zone's application. For example, nodes could not be less than half- mile apart. Mr. Rayor added that his suggestion for locational criteria was intended to scatter the nodes throughout the community and avoid stimulating growth at the urban growth boundary. Mr. Rayor moved to direct the City Manager to include node spacing and locational requirements to the ND overlay zone. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Childs anticipated that the council would consider the concepts inherent in Mr. Rayor's motion when it considered the nodes to be established. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 6, 2000 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct the City Manager to add a special use limitation for C-3 Major Commercial zoned areas to require any new off-street parking areas that exceed three spaces to be in a parking garage. Mr. Meisner asked if the definition of parking garage included underground garage. Mr. Kelly said yes. Mr. Meisner suggested that the motion be amended to change "in a parking garage" to "structured parking." Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor accepted Mr. Meisner's suggestion as a friendly amendment. Ms. Bishow noted that in addition to the central downtown area, there was a small enclave of C-3 zoning at the comer of 13th Avenue and Kincaid Street. The motion passed, 5:1; Mr. Rayor voting no. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 6, 2000 Page 11 Work Session