Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Eugene planners propose easing limits in E1, E2 employment zones to spur job development
Summary
Planning staff proposed expanding where E2 zoning can be sited and loosening limits on secondary commercial uses in E1 and E2 zones — increasing nonprimary use caps to 50% of a development site while keeping per‑establishment and total caps — to address slow industrial/employment development.
Planning staff presented proposed code amendments on Dec. 9 that would make Eugene’s E1 and E2 employment zones more flexible to encourage job growth and redevelopment. The changes include expanding where E2 can be established and adjusting how commercial “nonprimary” uses are measured and capped.
Elena Domingo, associate planner, described the rezoning change as a geographic expansion: “We’re proposing to expand where E2 zoning can be sited … to allow property within a half mile of an arterial street measured along the public right of way to be zoned E2.” That change would allow certain E1 or other parcels within that distance to seek rezoning to E2 without requiring arterial frontage or direct contiguity to existing E2/C2 parcels.
Domingo said the package also adds additional nonprimary commercial uses to E1 and E2 while keeping limits to preserve industrial land. Under the proposal, nonprimary uses would be limited to less than 50% of the development site, with a 30,000‑square‑foot maximum in employment zones and a 5,000‑square‑foot cap per establishment for E1 campus employment. Staff walked commissioners through diagrams showing how measuring nonprimary uses against the entire development site rather than only the primary use increases the potential nonprimary floor area on large lots.
Staff framed the amendments as a response to both data and developer feedback. Terry Harding, principal planner, said the changes follow the city’s buildable lands inventory and two years of research and outreach. Commissioners raised concerns about preserving enough industrially designated land for long‑term job uses; staff responded that the less‑than‑50% cap is a policy choice intended to keep the primary industrial use dominant while permitting more commercial activity to support employment areas.
Commissioners asked for concrete examples of where the changes would apply; staff cited Chad Drive and West 11th/Edgcum Business Park as locations where applicants sought more flexibility. Staff also clarified they did not add lodging to the E1 campus employment zone because lodging is not compatible with E1’s campus purpose; expanding eligibility for E2, however, would allow more lots to accommodate lodging where appropriate.
The presentation covered related development‑standard clarifications, including specifying that dwellings are allowed only when a primary use is present on a lot, tweaks to landscaping and outdoor storage rules, and added flexibility for parking and setback adjustments. Staff noted recent state legislation requires allowing child care in more zones; the draft will also treat adult day care like child care and allow veterinary clinics where medical clinics are permitted.
No formal motion or vote occurred; staff will return with refined code amendment language in future work sessions and with adoption packages in 2026–27.
The commission moved next to the housing code concepts portion of the UTS package.
