Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MInutes - 10/30/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall--Eugene, Oregon October 30, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Land Use Code Update Mayor Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. The council was joined by Planning Director Jan Childs, Senior Planner Teresa Bishow, and Planning and Development Director Paul Farmer for the item. Also present were Jerry Jacobson, Trish Thomas, and Mike McKerrow of the Planning and Development Department. Ms. Bishow reviewed the meeting schedule and called attention to the motions regarding Density and Appearance carried over from the previous meeting and several new motions distributed prior to the meeting. Density and Appearance Motions Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to direct the City Manager to amend section 9.2170(6) to reduce the minimum required landscape area in commercial zones from 15 percent of the development site to 10 percent, and to allow a greater fraction of the landscape area to be a hard surface for recreational or pedestrian use. Mr. Kelly reported that the motion was a result of testimony offered by several people, who suggested that it would be difficult to satisfy all the new requirements in the code with the proposed landscaping requirement. He said that several new and interesting commercial projects showed to the council by staff could not meet the requirement. Mr. Pap~ spoke in favor of the motion, suggesting that if the council retained the 15 percent requirement it should give developments credit for such things as green roofs, courtyards on the second or third level that contained landscaping, etc. He did not want to maintain the "hard and fast approach" represented by the percentage. Mr. Meisner clarified the motion would have no impact on landscaping in the right-of-way. Ms. Bettman said she agreed with the intent of the motion in terms of allowing flexibility. However, she was concerned about the appearance of commercial streets. Ms. Bettman MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 30, 2000 Page 1 Work Session suggested the council consider an exchange of objectives; for example, if a developer met a certain objective the City would relax the percentage of required landscaping. Ms. Taylor expressed concern that the motion could be interpreted as allowing more hard surface as part of the landscaping, creating more impervious surfaces. Mr. Kelly said it was not his intent to allow 100 percent of the area in question to be hardscaped. Mr. Meisner asked if the proposed percentage in the draft code was a problem for all commercial sites in all zones and if it related to the size of the site: was it a problem for just small sites or for all sites. Ms. Bishow clarified that in general, the landscape standard would mean that smaller sites had less design flexibility, while larger sites could likely meet the 15 percent requirement more readily. Mr. Meisner questioned whether the City wanted to reduce the landscape requirement for larger commercial developments. Ms. Bishow said that staff would interpret the motion as direction to staff to reduce the landscape requirement to ensure that positive developments could proceed without a significant barrier. Staff would examine the code to determine whether the landscape requirement should be reduced on large sites, or changed just for small sites. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Bishow said there was no minimum landscape area required in the C-3 zone, and the motion would not affect the C-3 zone. Mr. Kelly said he would like to encourage more use of the planting strip as a landscaped area, which he thought would improve the quality of commercial street scape. He thought it would be a good idea for staff to consider lot size as it revised the code. Ms. Bettman suggested that the motion be amended to refer to "permeable hard surfaces." Mr. Kelly said he would need some "real world" examples of how such materials worked in such instances. Ms. Bishow suggested that Ms. Bettman's proposed change was directed at the need to carefully define the landscape the City was trying to achieve, such as an area with living plant material covering 70 percent or more of the space so it was not a rock garden or paved concrete area. She indicated staff would address that concern in making the revisions to the code. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap~ regarding how staff would address the issue of planter boxes and green roofs, Ms. Bishow said that she would focus on the idea of creating a variety of options for providing areas for living plants that add to the environment. She thought that the code as revised in response to the discussion would permit a landscaping situation similar to that around the Council Chamber. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to apply Section 9.2170(17)(c) Buildinq Entrances and Section 9.2170(17)(k)(3) Exterior Ground Floor Windows to all commercial developments. Ms. Bettman believed that some of the standards the City applied to larger commercial developments were beneficial for smaller developments as well, and she thought the standard in question was appropriately applied. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 30, 2000 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Kelly said that he was supportive of the concept but concerned about the breadth of the motion, which would apply to all commercial developments. He said that the City may not want windows in some developments, citing blood banks, mortuaries, and veterinary offices as possible examples. Mr. Kelly suggested that the motion be amended by adding the phrase "whose uses are compatible with such requirements." He said that staff could interpret the phrase by creating a list of uses. After determining that Mr. Kelly's amendment was specific to exterior ground floor windows only, Ms. Bettman accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment to the motion. Ms. Nathanson agreed with Mr. Kelly that there were times when it might not be workable to have windows in all commercial developments. She thought the value of ground floor windows was lost when there were no people present to be seen at work or shopping; at that point they just created variety in the exterior. Ms. Nathanson asked if the motion could be interpreted so that, for example, a utility building would be required to have windows on the ground floor. Mr. Fart asked if the motion would apply to general retail space, such as a hardware store. Ms. Bishow said yes. Mr. Farr objected to its application in such instances, saying that many retail establishments did not have enough interior wall space for displays. Adding windows removed wall space. He said that a varied appearance was good but questioned whether any retailers had been asked their thoughts about the subject. Ms. Bishow pointed out that windows could be either glass areas that allow one to see through to the interior of the building or they could be display windows two to three feet in depth in which merchandise could be displayed while retaining the interior wall space. Mr. Farr said that if the goal of requiring windows was to allow "people to see people" he did not think that display windows accomplished that. They did remove retail space from inside of a building. That could force a retailer to increase the footprint of a store to make up for lost display space. Mr. Meisner said in principle, he supported the motion. He understood the concerns that Ms. Bettman had about such buildings, but he pointed out that uses change and could be a challenge for staff to address. He said that some buildings were built "on spec," without a tenant, and the use might not be known on construction. Mr. Meisner thought the requirement for windows was more than defensible as he thought it was community building but he hoped there was some flexibility to address the concerns raised by Mr. Fart. He pointed out to Mr. Fart that the City Council was not talking about requiring the retrofitting of existing retail space. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the motion was not just intended to create an interesting pedestrian street scape, but also served to create communication between those in the building and those on street, and was a large contributing factor to safer streets. Buildings with window frontages are a passive witness to what occurred on the street, and there was evidence such a design approach inhibited illegal activities while increasing safety for pedestrians. Mr. Pap~ asked if Eugene Police Department had been consulted about some of the requirements the council was adding to the code to create more of an "eye on the street." He MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 30, 2000 Page 3 Work Session hoped that Eugene did not find itself with commercial establishments that, for the sake of security, had to bar the windows required by the City. Mr. Farr thought there was value to windows for the reasons cited by Ms. Bettman but he did not like the idea that the City would require such windows of commercial developers for an aesthetic purpose when aesthetics could be achieved in a different way. He thought the motion too inflexible. Ms. Nathanson requested more staff input about the feasibility of the motion. Ms. Bishow responded that it could be clear in the ordinance to what uses the standard applied, so her only concern would be situations where a change of use occurred after the building was constructed. She noted that the Planning Commission had recommended exterior windows only for large- scale commercial uses. The motion would greatly increase the number of situations the standard applied to. If it was the council's intention to improve the appearance of smaller buildings, staff could look at other techniques, such as murals and interesting architectural details. Mr. Farmer briefly discussed the subject of crime prevention through environmental design. He said that national information indicated that transparent windows provided greater public safety on the sidewalk and into the commercial establishment. A display window would not achieve a true level of transparency, so ordinances written over the last ten years in other areas to address the issue typically required some true level of transparency. He suggested that staff could investigate whether there was a class of uses to which the standard could be applied. Mr. Farmer noted that Walgrens, for example, was a store that had voluntarily adopted a design model that met the proposed standard as its national model. Mr. Rayor did not support the motion because of the problem created by the change of use situation. He thought the requirement appropriate for larger commercial buildings but questioned it for smaller commercial buildings. Ms. Bettman said that a street scape with windows and displays was attractive but her motion was more impelled by the safety issue and what she had seen happening around the country in terms of new urban planning. She did not think signs or murals instead of windows would achieve her objective. Mr. Farr agreed that windows were the most attractive and safest alternative. However, he noted that Walgrens, the store mentioned by Mr. Farmer, were quite large and could afford to give up the space that a 5,000 square-foot retailer would not be able to lose without cost. At the request of Mr. Meisner, Ms. Bishow reviewed the window requirements in place for large- scale commercial uses. Mr. Kelly said the motion was intended to foster safety, aesthetics, and activity. He agreed that the change of use situation could be a challenge, but said there were several instances in the code where changes in use created new requirements. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to amend to the motion to direct staff to return to the council with a modified standard for buildings other than large-scale buildings as addressed in the code. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 30, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Mayor Torrey said that he would not support the main motion if called upon to vote. He said that the point raised by Mr. Farr was well-taken. Retailers struggle for space against the wall, which was the best place to display merchandise. He said that the result of the motion could be windows against which merchandise was stacked, which was ugly. He supported Ms. Nathanson's amendment. The motion as amended passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting no. The main motion as amended passed, 7:1; Mr. Farr voting no. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to require the same 15-foot maximum building setback in C- 4 and GO as currently proposed for C-1, C-2, and C-3. Ms. Bettman said that the rationale for the motion was the same as for the previous motion. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bishow said that the setback was appropriate for general office zoning. She would be concerned about applying the maximum building setback standard to the C-4 zone in that there are a lot of I-2 light-medium industrial uses in the zone that the City might not want next to the street. Mr. Pap8 questioned the applicability of the motion to development in outlying areas bordering on natural areas, saying that the building could be forced onto the street and the parking onto the natural feature because of space restraints. Ms. Bishow said that the opposite could happen, with the same detrimental results to the natural feature. She suggested that the design of the parking lot and drainage could mitigate the issue. Mr. Pap8 asked if the code allowed the developer the flexibility to make a choice in the location of the building and parking lot in terms of where the natural feature was. Ms. Bishow indicated she would check. Ms. Nathanson diagramed some design options for achieving a maximum building setback and confirmed with staff her diagram was accurate. Ms. Bettman did not think the motion would affect the functionality of manufacturing uses in the C-4 zone. The motion would affect the walkability and accessibility of the area, or what was seen and experienced from the street. Mr. Kelly determined that Ms. Bettman was assuming that manufacturing uses in C-4 zones were affiliated with an office or commercial use, and said that was not always the case; there could be an I-2 manufacturing operation with no offices in the C-4 zone. Ms. Taylor questioned what kind of manufacturing use should not be closer to the street. Mr. Kelly suggested a chemical plant might not be appropriately located near a street. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Ms. Bishow said she continued to be concerned about a new industrial use being built on vacant property that might have noise and air emissions and questioned whether the council wanted that use directly along a sidewalk. She noted that the council would have a chance to discuss the issue again. Ms. Childs said that C-4 was applied to very few places in the city; it was a zone designed to serve as a transition zone between commercial and industrial. She was unsure that there would be many circumstances where a large new manufacturing operation was located in a C-4 zone. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 30, 2000 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Pap~ suggested that the motion could preclude locating a new general office use such as a federal courthouse directly adjacent to a newly reopened Millrace. He thought the City would prefer to have the building and landscape adjacent to the Millrace, as opposed to parking. Ms. Bishow indicated that if the motion was approved, staff would look at the maximum building setback and determine whether there was an ability to grant an adjustment if there was a broader public benefit to orienting a building toward a natural feature such as the Millrace. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Rayor, Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Pap~, and Mr. Farr voting no, and Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Meisner, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition to the motion, and it failed on a 5:4 vote. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to require the same 15-foot maximum building setback in GO as currently proposed for C-1, C-2, and C-3. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Rayor voting no. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to prohibit all above-ground utility boxes of all sizes, for services such as telephone, fiber optic, electrical, gas, and wide band digital, in required front yard setbacks. Ms. Nathanson indicated the intent of the motion was to improve the appearance of neighborhoods. Referring to the photographs included in the meeting packet of such boxes, she said the City could look forward to more such refrigerator-sized boxes, not fewer. Mr. Kelly agreed that the sods of examples pictured were undesirable. He suggested that the City consider a minimum size of the utility boxes being regulated to avoid regulating small front- yard cable television boxes. Ms. Nathanson said she did not object to such a minimum. Ms. Bishow indicated that staff would consider the council's legislative intent. Noting that some such utilities were required to be above-ground, and some were located in the public right-of-way, Mr. Rayor advocated for requiring screening of utility boxes. Mr. Fart asked staff if the City had data regarding cost-effective existing technology that could replace the boxes in question. Ms. Childs did not have such data. Mr. Farmer described different approaches utilities took in siting utility boxes. Ms. Bishow said she was unsure that the City could require screening in the public utility easement under its current working agreements with the utility companies, but staff could look into that. Mr. Meisner was not interested in screening utility boxes as an alternative to the approach in the motion. He wanted to prohibit utility boxes in the front yard setback but suggested there may be situations where that was the only option for siting, and in that case screening would be appropriate. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 30, 2000 Page 6 Work Session Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Childs confirmed that all uses in all zones, including commercial and industrial uses, had front-yard setbacks. Mr. Farr questioned the cost of the requirement on the cost of housing. Mr. Rayor did not think the City could require utilities to place boxes in the backyard when the system was in the street. He continued to support screening. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to amend the motion as follows: "To direct the City Manager to prohibit all above-ground utility boxes of all sizes, for services such as telephone, fiber optic, electrical, gas, and wide band digital, in required front yards, unless screened on three sides from the street." Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Ms. Bishow said she was unsure if the motion created a conflict with the existing code in terms of what was allowed in easements. Mr. Farmer indicated that if the motion passed, staff would look at current practices in terms of what occurred in the front-yard setback. He thought that technically, many citizens were in noncompliance because they had already screened such boxes in the front-yard setback. Mr. Meisner did not support the amendment. He said it would allow the placement of all boxes of all sizes in the front-yard setback with the provision of screening. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Meisner's remarks. He said while it was clear that staff needed to do some further work on the details of implementation, such as consulting with the utilities, he supported the spirit of the motion. Regarding Mr. Farr's remarks about the impact on the cost of housing, he suggested that the cost would be largely to the service provider and could impact residents through increases in the price of the services provided. Ms. Nathanson said that the proliferation of providers competing with new technology and equipment made it difficult to plan for the location of services. She thought the City would see more such boxes because of more competition and the convergence of technologies. She wanted the City to do something to address the problem now as delay would result in the installation of more boxes. Ms. Bettman did not support the amendment. She appreciated Ms. Nathanson's motion and agreed that the number of boxes would proliferate. She would accept a motion that indicated in the absence of other options, location in the front-yard setback could be accepted with screening. In new development she did not think the location of such boxes should be an issue. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Ms. Nathanson clarified that her concern was about new providers coming into the community and installing new equipment. Mr. Pap8 expressed concern that existing developments would have a difficult time ensuring that the equipment was located out of the front-yard setback for lack of room. Ms. Nathanson agreed, saying for that reason she supported Mr. Rayor's amendment. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Ms. Bishow confirmed that the service providers had "free rein" to install boxes where they wished. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 30, 2000 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Rayor suggested that an additional public process might be needed if the council choose to adopt the motion, given the lack of public discussion. Responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Childs, Ms. Nathanson confirmed that her motion was applicable to new boxes. The vote on the amended motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting yes, and Mr. Rayor, Ms. Nathanson, Mr. PapS, and Mr. Farr voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in favor of the motion, which passed on a 5:4 vote. The main motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Meisner voting no. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to expand the scope of the future Planning Commission work item reviewing the location for underground utility facilities to include the location and design standards for above ground utilities. The motion passed unanimously 7:1:0; Mr. Pap8 abstaining from the vote as he was out of the room at the time the vote was taken. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to require parking lot landscaping standards to apply, in Section 9.6420(3), to any building expansion that increases the building square footage by 20 percent or more. The motion passed, 7:1:0; Mr. Pap8 abstaining as he was out of the room at the time the vote was taken. Economic Diversification--Consent Item Motions Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to: (a) Amend Table 9.2160 Commercial Zone and Land Use Permit Requirements, to treat hospitals and clinics differently. Specifically, allow clinics as a permitted use in all commercial zones except C-4 (retaining the size limitation of section 9.2161(1) for C-1.) Require hospitals to obtain a Conditional Use Permit in C-2, C-3 and GO. Drop the 10,000 square foot size distinction. (b) To amend Table 9.2160 to permit Broadcasting Studios in the General Office zone with standards allowing any number of receiving antennas and up to one station-to-station transmitter-link antenna not to exceed 10 watts with a maximum allowed height of 20 feet above the roof of the main building. Ms. Bettman asked that Item (b) be pulled. The motion as it related to Item (a) passed, 7:1:0, Mr. Pap~ being out of the room at the time. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 30, 2000 Page 8 Work Session In regard to Item (b), Ms. Bettman objected to making a change regarding an allowed use in a whole zone to accommodate a single business, pointing out that the business in question could go through a zone change. Mr. Rayor noted that the code provided for up to an 18-foot addition to the top of a building for an antenna. He thought that provision made the motion unnecessary. Mr. McKerrow clarified that Section 9.6720 provided such an exception, but the motion also addressed a use, a radio station, that was not legally established in the zone it was located. Mayor Torrey advocated for the motion. He believed that the business in question was appropriately located in the General Office zone, noting that the Federal Communications Commission had recently approved of a new type of radio station that was considered a neighborhood radio station. Those stations would need inexpensive general office locations to operate. He clarified that the transmission site would be located away from the station location. Mr. Kelly asked how the business in question was established if the use was not allowed in the zone. Mr. McKerrow said that it appeared that the use moved into a general office zone as the owner assumed the zone was appropriate for the use. Some minor building permits were required that did not include a zoning review. Ms. Bishow noted that the City had not received any complaints about the use. The nonconforming nature of the use was discovered when the owner asked the City about new building permits for some repair work. Mr. Kelly supported the motion for the reasons cited by Mayor Torrey. Mr. Meisner did not like legislating for a single business, saying he would be more comfortable letting the nonconforming use continue. Ms. Bishow suggested another approach, where the code could indicate that any radio station established as of the effective date of the ordinance in a General Office zone was permitted. No other radio stations could be established in the zone. Mr. Meisner endorsed that approach. However, he was also interested in fostering the small neighborhood stations that could be established in the future, and suggested a work program item to that effect be considered. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the motion by deleting the reference to the maximum height of 20 feet. Ms. Nathanson asked if there was an engineering reason to reduce the height of the antenna, or if it was intended to bring the motion into compliance with the current code. Mr. Rayor said that his amendment was for the sake of consistency with the code. Ms. Bettman reiterated her objection to the motion, noting that there had been no public testimony about the issue, and suggesting the only reason it was before the council was that it was an easy way to allow the use to continue without going through a zone change. Mr. Kelly thought it appropriate to grandfather the existing business but indicated his agreement with Ms. Bettman's comments about the lack of public comment about the issue. He indicated opposition to the amendment and the motion and said if it failed he would offer another motion to grandfather radio stations in the general office zone as of the code adoption date. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 30, 2000 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Fart pointed out that in some cases people were less prepared than other people to submit public testimony, even though they were affected by the issue. They often operated businesses and did not have time to submit testimony. He did not think the lack of testimony should determine the vote. He asked why the council should not allow the use in the General Office zone, particularly given the mayor's remarks about neighborhood radio stations. Ms. Nathanson said it was important to solicit public comment, but she did not think the use in question would generate a lot of traffic or public visits. The impact on the public seemed quite negligible. Mr. Meisner said that given the many zones such uses could locate in, he opposed the amendment and the motion. Mayor Torrey doubted whether the public could distinguish between a broadcast and recording facility. He believed that a prohibition would impact the small radio station operators, not the large operators. The vote on the amendment was a 4:4 tie, Mr. Rayor, Mr. Pap~, Mr. Fart, and Ms. Nathanson voting yes, and Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Meisner voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in support of the motion and the motion passed on a 5:4 vote. The vote on the amended motion was a 4:4 tie, Mr. Rayor, Mr. Pap~, Mr. Fart, and Ms. Nathanson voting yes, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Meisner voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in support of the motion and the motion passed, 5:4. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 30, 2000 Page 10 Work Session 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 Ms. Nathanson supported the motion, saying she was happy to see "information technology services" join the list of uses. She thought it was the type of industry the City wanted to see more of. Ms. Nathanson suggested that someone might interpret "information technology services" in a overly limited fashion, and asked if it should be "information technology." Mr. Pap8 encouraged staff to look at factors other than floor square footage. He said that many busineses had two and three stories of equipment in a building off the footprint of the main stow. Ms. Bettman was not convinced information technology services uses were more appropriately located in an I-1 zone as opposed to a general office or commercial zone. She was concerned that I-1 land would be used up by developments better located in other zones. She asked how one determined that an office only served the public on an incidental basis, and how "incidental" was defined. Ms. Bettman said that the statement that 50 percent of the total ground floor square footage will be in industrial use meant that only a small percentage of a three-stow building would include the industrial use for which the zone was intended. The result would be the conversion of industrial land to office space. Ms. Taylor also opposed the motion, questioning why it was needed. Mr. Farr said that the motion was intended to encourage economic diversity. Ms. Taylor did not see how it accomplished that goal. Mr. Kelly added that information technology services were a potential economic diversification tool. He said that several councilors had looked at I-1 as defined in the draft and agreed it did not work. He noted that during the following meeting, he would ask the council to consider a similar approach in commercial zones. He did not view them as exclusive to the I-1 zone. The motion passed, 6:2, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by KimberlyYoung) MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 30, 2000 Page 12 Work Session