Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 09/18/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall--Eugene, Oregon September 18, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION In the absence of Mayor James D. Torrey, Council Vice President Betty Taylor called the meeting to order. A. Nomination of Interim Councilor Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Farr, to appoint Bonny Bettman to complete the term of Bobby Lee as City Councilor for Ward 3. Mr. Rayor clarified for the record that Ms. Bettman was assuming the vacated chair of Bobby Lee, whose seat on the council was due to expire January 2001. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Administrative Services Department Director Warren Wong swore Ms. Bettman in as the new councilor for Ward 3. Ms. Taylor welcomed Ms. Bettman to the council. B.Election of Officers Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to postpone the election of officers indefinitely. Mr. Kelly indicated that the City Manager was attempting to find a date for the item that did not involve taking time from an agenda item. The motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Rayor voting no. C.Work Session: Land Use Code Update MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2000 Page 1 Work Session The council was joined for the item by Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer, Planning Director Jan Childs, Project Manager Teresa Bishow, and City Attorney Emily Jerome. Mr. Rayor requested that staff provide a brief impact assessment of each of the many motions before the City Council. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to direct the City Manager to change the Nodal 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 explained that at the last meeting the council decided to adjust the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the transit oriented development (TOD) overlay and this decision was similar. In the current draft the ratio was only .4 to .65, resulting in a less intensive level of land use than he desired. Ms. Childs said that the difference between this motion and the motion related to the TOD, in the TOD area the City was primarily dealing with commercial property. The Nodal Development (ND) overlay zone also included industrially zoned areas, where a requirement for a two-storey building could be problematic in some instances. Mr. Meisner acknowledged Ms. Childs' statement but said he was interested in more efficient use of land and he believed that offices in industrial zones, for example, could be located on a second floor. Mr. Kelly asked what uses would be expected on land zoned industrial with an ND overlay, and what benefits would result. Ms. Childs responded that there may be instances where an already developed area received the ND overlay zone and may have some manufacturing zoning included in it; the likelihood of the redevelopment of that property in the time frame that the interim zone could be applied was not strong. She was not thinking of campus industrial, but of more typical industrial development. Ms. Nathanson asked if the central Eugene industrial area near 11th Avenue and Garfield Street was a potential candidate for the ND zone. Ms. Childs said it was a good example of a potential area. Ms. Nathanson said that the City might look forward to redevelopment but not want to apply anything that actually discouraged redevelopment. Mr. Rayor said if he voted no on the motion it was because he did not understand its implications. He asked if the motion meant that any land to which the ND zone was applied would have to have a FAR of .65. Ms. Childs clarified that the motion did not institute a floor area ratio but required new development to be at least two stories. The FAR may be different in some instances. Mr. Kelly said that was not his intent to require all development to be two storeys. He thought a FAR was an appropriate mechanism because it would provide for split level development. Ms. Childs said that she interpreted the motion as stipulating that a portion of the development site would be two storeys in height. Mr. Kelly said that was because of the FAR, not because the code stipulated two storeys. He thought the distinction important because of the additional flexibility created by the FAR. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2000 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Meisner reminded the council the discussion was about nodes, where more dense development was desired. He said that the council needed to balance the issues involved. He acknowledged the potential for a problem but believed that it could be avoided when the nodes were mapped. If a specific exception arose in the interim, he thought the council could find a way to address it. Mr. Fart expressed support for the motion because he believed it provided some flexibility and because he perceived it could be a mechanism for lowering the cost of housing. He said that second storeys might be developed as rental housing. Ms. Bettman also supported the motion as she thought FAR was key to nodal development. Ms. Taylor concurred. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to direct the City Manager to require a conditional use permit for any new parking areas in C-2 that are not directly tied to a specific development. Include as conditional use permit approval criteria consideration of whether there is a need for parking in the area. Mr. Kelly explained that parking area was defined in the code as a standalone tax lot that was nothing but a parking lot, and his intent was to preclude commercial land from being developed as parking. Mr. Fart asked about the effect of the motion on temporary event parking. Ms. Bishow did not think there would be an effect for parking that was truly temporary. Ms. Bishow noted that the motion would require a conditional use permit (CUP) for a use that, by its nature, did not warrant a public review. She said that clear landscaping and drainage standards, for example, are required for such developments to address compatibility. Ms. Bishow said that prior to parking lot standards being put into the code, the City experienced some interim parking lots being created partially because their establishment could be done with minimal cost. With current parking lot standards, creation of such lots were less of a problem. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Bishow said that the motion would address situations where an entire site was used for parking without any direct linkage to a commercial enterprise or other use. She said that the unintended consequence of the motion was the staff time needed to review parking areas through the CUP process with the purpose of actually discouraging the use. Mr. Rayor noted that he had voted to oppose structured parking in C-3 districts because the City was now the sole provider of parking in downtown and maintained artificially Iow prices. Other providers could not make a profit because of the City's Iow parking prices. Mr. Kelly said he chose the CUP process because that was the only review mechanism he was aware of. He asked for staff suggestions for an review process shod of the CUP process. Ms. Childs asked if Mr. Kelly was seeking a process with a public hearing. Mr. Kelly said no. Ms. Bishow recommended the site review process. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Meisner agreed to substitute "site review" for "conditional use permit process" in the motion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2000 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Meisner did not think the situation was likely to arise very often because few developers were inclined to use valuable land soley for commercial parking. Mr. Rayor determined that parking lots in C-2 zones must be improved, which was why the City was seeing fewer of them. Ms. Bishow agreed. She added that there were still situations where interim parking areas occurred on gravel lots and the City enforced the code on a complaint basis in those cases. She agreed with Mr. Meisner that there was not as much a market or demand for parking lots as a sole use. Ms. Childs suggested that a criteria for the council to consider was whether a proposed lot was for the purpose of providing shared parking. There was general council concurrence. Ms. Nathanson questioned adding a criteria related to need, suggesting that if there was none the lot would not be developed as parking, and if there was a need, why allow new surface parking rather than requiring that parking be integrated with a structure. Mr. Meisner concurred. He said that there was an implication in the notion of need that developers always base development on need. He distinguished between developer profit need and public need. Mr. Fart asked if the motion could affect Lane Transit District transfer stations. Ms. Bishow did not think so as there was now transit related facilities actually listed in the code including one entitled Park and Ride Lots. Such lots could be located on C-2 zones even if the motion was passed. Ms. Bettman favored the motion because she felt there would be pressure for such surface parking as densification occurred. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about the distinction between review methods, Ms. Childs said that staff could develop a Type II review for parking lots in C-2 zones. Mr. Meisner said that said he did not care about the process used and suggested that staff make a recommendation. Mr. Kelly agreed, saying that there was sufficient legislative intent to guide staff. Mr. Meisner suggested that the specific review mechanism be dropped from the motion. Ms. Childs concurred. Mr. Fart asked if the motion ruled out the use of lots for temporary parking until development occurred. Ms. Bishow said it did not rule out a temporary parking area from being established, but the owner would still have to improve the parking lot to City standards, which might preclude the use from an economic point of view. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Kelly said the intent of the next motion was to allow commercial uses in an R-2 zone without the need for a planned unit development. He noted that he had heard concerns the motion could take away housing stock. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to change the code to allow in the R-2 medium density residential zone any C-1 neighborhood commercial use if approved through a conditional use permit and if located within 200 feet of an intersection. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Pap~ arrived at the meeting. Mr. Meisner expressed concern about the potential for a proliferation of C-1 uses near intersections. He did not want to see the provision abused, and was not sure how the Iocational criteria helped. He asked how uses could be limited. Ms. Bishow thought it could be difficult since the CUP process was focused on compatibility, and the location of an adjacent commercial use could be used as an argument in favor of an additional commercial use next door. Ms. Nathanson said that a few examples would help her think about the issue. She believed that the point of the motion was to encourage residential access to transit and neighborhood commercial uses, but she did not think the Iocational criteria helped. She said that if the point was to maintain density and residential uses, perhaps a percentage basis or allowance of such uses when a certain number of dwelling spaces were located on a block. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the council give the staff some basic direction rather than attempting to craft a solution now. Mr. Fart was uncertain about the motion. He said that he was assuming the motion would allow for commercial development on the ground floor of a structure with housing on the second floor. Ms. Bishow concurred. She said that if the council's goal was to retain the residential density use on a property it should be explicit about that in the code. Otherwise, Ms. Bishow said, the passage of the motion could have a big impact on certain areas in the community. Mr. Fart thought there was value to having such commercial developments within residential districts, saying it would not happen if a use was not a viable commercial enterprise. Ms. Bettman did not support the motion. She said that much of the existing areas zoned R-2 zoning was converted housing and mixed uses, and she wanted to prevent further such conversions. She said that she could support the motion if it required a residential use on the second storey, or if applied to new development only. Ms. Bettman said that she had seen residentially zoned property in her neighborhood become commercial or general office through the CUP process, and it seemed to occur at the convergence of intersections. While that was good in that it provided transit access to those uses, the motion did not address that issue and threatened already existing housing stock. Mr. Rayor suggested that the Iocational criterion be deleted from the motion and that it conclude with the phrase "and other parameters recommended by staff." Mr. Kelly and Mr. Meisner accepted the revision as a friendly amendment. Mr. Meisner questioned whether the motion was a way of requiring second storey residential in existing neighborhoods. He said that many of the existing neighborhoods were not well- developed and were designed for auto use only and it resulted in sprawl. Mr. Meisner said he would like to see Eugene neighborhoods have small commercial uses to serve residents. Ms. Nathanson asked staff if there was some way to allow the conversion of residences near an intersection to commercial uses if that use was associated with development of adjacent multiple-family housing, or if the City should consider allowing such situations. That could increase density on the block and provide for neighborhood commercial uses. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to consider restrictions on the hours of operation for neighborhood commercial uses. Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer said that MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2000 Page 5 Work Session Eugene can, under Oregon law, limit the hours of a commercial operation in a residential neighborhood. Ms. Nathanson said that merely because people live in multi-family units did not mean they were not deserving of a wonderful residential neighborhood. Ms. Taylor was concerned about the impact of the motion on neighborhoods. She said that regardless of the hours, commercial operations produce traffic and noise, and she would be hesitant to support the motion. Mr. Farr thought the results of the motion could enhance neighborhoods and the uses that were built would not draw people to a neighborhood from other areas of the city. He said that he did not want to do anything that would adversely affect the ability of families and individuals to afford housing, and asked staff to keep that in mind as it considered the issue. Ms. Bettman noted the advice of Mayor Pat Conden of Vancouver, BC, that cities not over commercialize and that they densify incrementally. She also noted neighborhood resident concerns about vacant commercial parking lots after hours, and suggested that having housing above commercial uses would neutralize that problem because the use then became a 24-hour use. Mayor Torrey arrived at the meeting. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Mayor Torrey assumed the chair. City Manager Jim Johnson arrived at the meeting. Housing Affordability and Variety Ms. Bishow asked the council to discuss whether the right mix of housing was being provided in the residential zones, and the degree to which nonresidential uses were permitted in those zones. She also described the key factors influencing housing costs. Referring the council to a matrix distributed prior to the meeting entitled Dwelling Types by Zone, Ms. Bishow described proposed code changes related to housing variety. She added that the Metro Plan assumed that a portion (30 percent) of the land planned for residential use would be developed with auxiliary uses such as streets, schools, parks, churches, and public facilities. Mr. Meisner asked staff to develop text for a motion to prevent the conversion of housing in the residential area west of downtown to housing. Ms. Nathanson referred to page 2 of Theme Area 4, Housing Affordability and Variety, and the statement which indicated that smaller lots generally provided greater opportunity for homeownership opportunities than housing constructed in the form of apartments. She asked about the relationship of that statement to infill flag lots or granny flats, asking if those would generally be rental properties. She asked if a majority of property owners wanted to subdivide and sell a portion of their property. Ms. Bishow said that the basis for the statement was that a house on its own legal lot can be owned, as opposed to an apartment building, where there was MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2000 Page 6 Work Session no opportunity for home ownership. She had no data about the homeownership rate for flag or alley lots, saying that anecdotal evidence indicated that they were often rentals because they lacked amenities desired by homeowners. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct the City Manager to change the code to prohibit the creation of alley access lots in residential zoned areas, and that further consideration be given in a work plan to address neighborhood concerns. Mr. Kelly explained that the intent of his motion was to prevent new alley access lots from being created after adoption of the code update because of their effect on surrounding properties, the lack of community connection for such residents, the many unimproved alleys in the city, and their constraints on emergency access. The work plan would ensure that the council gave further thought to the issue after adoption. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly said that by alley access, he meant a lot that only took automobile access from an alley. Mr. Farr understood the difficulties of reaching lots that were only accessible by alleyway, and the condition of the housing stock was often questionable. However, removing the potential of such developments would permanently eliminate them from the housing stock thus making housing less accessible and more expensive. He suggested that the problems associated with alley access lots be addressed rather than eliminating the possibility entirely. Mr. Rayor agreed with Mr. Farr. However, he thought such developments were too problematic right now and wanted to vote for a motion that left alive the possibility of working on alley access issues sometime in the future. Mr. Pap8 asked about the scope of the issue the motion was intended to address. Ms. Bishow said that the city currently had about 500 such lots developed with dwellings. Those were legal uses that would be continued after adoption of the code. She did not know how many were owner-occupied. Mr. Pap8 asked if the word "alley" was well-defined. Ms. Bishow said that staff would work to ensure it was well-defined. She added that now the code allowed for the creation of an alley access lot on an alley created before 1982, which meant that such lots could only occur in the Eugene downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. She said that narrow rural streets would not be defined as alleys. Ms. Childs suggested that the motion could be separated into two motions, noting that the issue raised by Mr. Rayor regarding the future work program item could be addressed by a second motion, if the first motion passed. Ms. Bettman favored the motion. She acknowledged that most of the alleys in question were in developed neighborhoods in the urban core where the City wanted to preserve single-family housing and the tree canopy. She appreciated Mr. Farr's issue about the loss of housing opportunities, and indicated she planned to offer a motion to create a cottage zone as another way of densifying neighborhoods and had other ideas as well. Without those other strategies, the council was considering the motion in a vacuum. Ms. Bettman addressing some of the problems resulting from alley lots, cited the expense to existing homeowners from alley improvements triggered by a majority of neighbors, the loss of MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2000 Page 7 Work Session tree canopy and gardening opportunities, and the loss of single-family housing. She preferred other density strategies, including cottage zoning and asset mapping. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Bettman. However, he said he did not regard large lot single-family homes as a "sacred cow." At the same time, he loved the community's old neighborhoods. He intended to vote against the motion because it was not in context with other council decisions. He wanted a tradeoffs and consequences discussion. Mr. Meisner wanted to see changes in the assessment policies related to alley improvements to address the size of the frontage of a developing property. He was not happy with alley lot development but disliked the motion as a permanent prohibition, and looked forward to consideration of other motions that help the community accomplish its density goals in the best way for neighborhoods. Mr. Farr expressed interest in hearing some of Ms. Bettman's ideas. He hoped the motion was defeated and the issues involved examined again after the council looked at other development types that the City could use creatively to maintain its housing stock. The motion failed on a tie vote, 4:4; Mr. Farr, Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, and Mr. Pap8 voting no, and Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Rayor, and Ms. Taylor voting yes. Mayor Torrey broke the tie by voting in opposition to the motion for a 5:4 vote. Ms. Bishow discussed the implications of eliminating flag lots, saying that about 20 percent of new lots currently being created through the partition process were flag lots. In new subdivisions, the figure was closer to less than ten percent. If flag lots were eliminated in subdivisions, it might not eliminate density as a large lot could likely be developed as a duplex or triplex. In a partition, the action would have a greater impact on the City's density objectives. Ms. Bishow sought the council's advice on whether staff should draft standards regarding compatibility. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Bishow agreed that it was unlikely that triplexes or duplexes in such situations would be owner-occupied. She said that it was difficult to know how the market would respond. She noted that she recently signed a final plat for a 13-1ot subdivision that would have been 11 lots in size if flag lots were not permitted. Staff also encountered lots that were too narrow to partition as two standard lots with the required street frontage, and in such cases the developer generally wanted to create a lot flag in the rear. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to direct the City Manager to amend the code to prohibit flag lots in residentially zoned areas. Ms. Taylor did not object to flag lots for new development but objected to them in existing neighborhoods. She thought that the City generally wanted to avoid curb cuts and advocated for alley access to new housing. Ms. Taylor wanted to eliminate the curb cuts necessitated by such flag lots, saying they were not safe for children or attractive. Ms. Bishow suggested that Ms. Taylor consider prohibiting flag lots in partition processes if she wished to prohibit them in established neighborhood. Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman accepted Ms. Bishow's suggestion as a friendly amendment to the motion. Mr. Farmer suggested that staff could examine standards that dictated the number of curb cuts, for example, allowed for flag lots. He said that there were instances where flag lots were only allowed with shared driveways to cut down on paving and reduce curb cuts. He suggested that MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2000 Page 8 Work Session there may be topographic instances where that was not feasible and exceptions could be considered in that case. Ms. Nathanson said that there were examples in her neighborhood of flag lots with shared driveways that appeared to work well, were attractive, and were appropriate to the neighborhood. Mr. Fart said that he hoped the City would maintain flexibility in allowing development of flag lots by instituting some kind of design standards to address the issues raised by Ms. Taylor as an alternative to passage of the motion. Mr. Meisner opposed the motion, saying that when he traveled he made a point of looking at development and he had seen many situations where infill had worked well, and it might require design standards to make that happen. He was unwilling to hold existing neighborhoods sacred, pointing out that much of south Eugene was developed in an old water district with lots a third of an acre or larger, which was a waste of land. He wanted the City to address that in the future in some positive manner. Mr. Meisner said that the motion would preclude that from occurring. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Mr. Meisner, saying that passage of the motion could mean that land that might and ought to be developed could no longer be partitioned and thus no longer developed. Mr. Kelly said that he supported the motion because it did not preclude flag lots in new developments. He hoped that, in case the motion failed, staff could develop an approach that depended on the size of the existing lot to address the large-lot issue mentioned by Mr. Meisner. Ms. Taylor was very concerned about protecting established neighborhoods, saying people decided the type of neighborhood they wanted to live in, and a right to continue to live there. She supported a variety of types of neighborhoods. She said that there were good reasons not to divide lots in southeast Eugene, including the hilly terrain and soil types that were not suitable for construction. Ms. Bettman favored the motion. She believed there were equity issues involved. She asked why the City could not protect the existing lots in the urban core of 8,000 or 9,000 square feet if people were developing large lots at the edge of the community. She thought the City should protect the single-family housing in the core and create an opportunity for a diversity of housing, rather than forcing everything to be small lots and higher density housing. Another equity issue was the geographic constraints to the creation of flag lots. Ms. Bettman did not think many would be created in the south hills and the majority will occur in already established neighborhoods in the core. She said that residents expressed a strong dislike of flag lots because they could result in the installation of a manufactured house in the back yard of a historic house. She agreed with Ms. Taylor about the proliferation of driveway cuts resulting from flag lots, which she believed would result in a vacant street scape and conflicts between pedestrians and automobiles. Mr. Rayor disagreed with Ms. Bettman. He said that he had seen many flag lots in Eugene and while he did not think they represented the most desirable development he thought them necessary for infill and for maintaining the urban growth boundary. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Rayor. He saying that he was not talking about hilly terrain but the many flat large lots in south Eugene in the area south of Sundance Natural Foods. In some MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2000 Page 9 Work Session cases, those lots were 20,000 to 40,000 square feet. The motion would prohibit infill there. Mr. Meisner said that if the City restricted any innovative form of development to new development, it would lose an opportunity. He pointed out that there was not a lot of vacant land in the city. Passage of the motion would mean the City would not achieve its density goals using infill development, and it would lead to fast track demands to increasing the urban growth boundary. Mayor Torrey agreed with Mr. Meisner. He said that saying no means that the City quit too soon. He said that he might be willing to look at further adjustments, but if required to vote he would not support the motion. Mr. Fart reiterated the need to maintain flexibility while addressing the concerns raised by Ms. Taylor. He said he had seen examples of small cottage structures in the back of larger houses with bicycle and pedestrian access only, and expressed interest in following up on a similar concept for Eugene. Ms. Nathanson said that in the same way she was concerned about blanket minimum lot sizes, she was also concerned about discrepancies in minimum lot sizes for single-family residential and flag lots. She asked staff to examine the minimum lot size for flag lots with the minimum lot size for R-1 and nodal development, and determine if the City was establishing two thresholds. Ms. Bettman said that densifying does not mean that the City needed to divide lots in mature neighborhoods. She said she had some good ideas about ways to densify those neighborhoods without subdividing every lot to create a diversity of housing types. She suggested that the council table the motion until after a discussion on those ideas. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Pap~, to table the motion. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Rayor, Mr. Fart, Ms. Nathanson voting no. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Farr, to amend the code to clarify the difference between "dwelling, duplex," and "dwelling, secondary." The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Farr, to change the code to clarify that a residential lot with a single-family dwelling and a secondary dwelling is only required to have a total of two off-street parking spaces on the property. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Bishow clarified that the intent of the motion was to require at least two off-street parking spaces for the development site. Responding to a suggestion from Mr. Meisner that the number of spaces be changed to one, Ms. Bettman pointed out that in most single-family housing situations there were two parking spaces: the garage and the parking space. Mr. Meisner said that most developers were going to provide two, but requiring two as a minimum seemed excessive. Ms. Bettman and Mr. Fart agreed to change the motion to indicate one space rather than two. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Bishow said that there was no maximum size requirement for the stall size but there was a minimum dimension. If the amended motion were approved, single-family detached dwellings would be required to have one off-street parking space. If another unit was added, the property owner could choose to, but would not be required to, add a second space. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2000 Page 10 Work Session The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to direct the City Manager to amend the code to prohibit "government services" and "religious services" on residentially zoned land that exceed 25,000 square feet of total structure area. Mr. Rayor did not support the motion, hoping to take more of a conditional use approach toward government service uses similar to that used for religious services. Ms. Nathanson feared that the motion would open the City up to federal legislation that would supercede the City's zoning ordinances. Ms. Jerome indicated she would do further research into the legislation. Ms. Nathanson said that generally cities pass such ordinances for purposes of compatibility, and she was concerned that the action being considered by the council would be used by those supporting church supersiting authority. She said that generally, such limits resulted in proposals that were just under the maximum size, and asked staff to consider that. Ms. Childs agreed that was always a possibility. Ms. Bishow concurred. Mr. Fart suggested splitting the motion into two questions to address the two components of the motion. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Meisner agreed to narrow the motion to government services. Mayor Torrey determined from staff that "government services" as listed in the draft code did not include education. Ms. Bishow said that such uses as fire stations and libraries would be regulated if the motion were passed. Mr. Pap~ clarified that the motion would impact all residential zones. He further clarified that the motion was specific to total square feet rather than building footprint. Ms. Bishow concurred, adding the motion would also preclude expansion of existing government services operating a structure with at least 25,000 square feet. The motion failed, 4:4; Mr. Meisner, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly voting yes, and Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Farr, Mr. Pap~, and Mr. Rayor voting no. Mayor Torrey broke the tie by voting in opposition to the motion for a 5:4 vote. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by KimberlyYoung) MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2000 Page 11 Work Session