02/08/1982 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- ~ e . :; revisions in November 1981. He said that on December 7, 1981, and January 4, 1982, the Planning Commission had developed its final recommendations to the City Council and these recommendations were summarized in the schematic diagrams that had been distributed to councilors. Mr. Croteau went through these recom- mendations, which called for deleting a number of non-residential uses in the R-3 and R-4 zones; eliminating clinics as a use in both districts in the West University neighborhood area south of 13th Avenue; and allowing existing clinics located in that area to expand under the conditional use permit process. Mr. Croteau said that this expansion would be restricted to areas under development control by the existing clinic as of December 1,1981. Mr. Croteau said that Planning Commission chairperson Randy Thwing was present to answer Questions on the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindberg asked how the Planning Commission and staff had determined what uses were incompatible with residential uses in these zones. Mr. Croteau responded that the needs of the residential community had been balanced with the needs of the medical community and that the listing of uses had resulted from this balance and compromise. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor: Adrienne Lannom, 460 East 15th Avenue, referred to the R-3 amendments. She said that she had no objection to recommendations I-a through 1-d as they appeared in the corrected notice of public hearing. She did, however, suggest the following changes to the recommendations regarding clinic use: substitute for l-e--elimin- ation of new clinics as a conditional use except: 1) when new residential units are developed on 50 percent of the development site; or 2) when an existing house is converted to clinic use and remains the residence of one of the clinic practitioners. Substitute for 1-f--allowing existing clinics to expand as conditional uses under any of the following circumstances: 1) expansion is limited to up to 50 percent of the floor area on their current development site; or 2) expansion is onto vacant land under their development control as of December 1, 1981, provided that the expansion allows for residential units on not less than 50 percent of the total floor area of the development; or 3) expansion is onto developed land under development control as of December 1, 1981, provided that any existing residential units on the development site shall be replaced. Regarding the R-4 amendments, Ms. Lannom said that she had no objections to recommendations a, b, c, or e, but she objected strongly to recommendation 2-d. She said that her objection was based on policy statements in the Residen- tial Land Use and Housing element of the Metropolitan Area General Plan, to which LCDC had referred in its Acknowledgment of Compliance Report of MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 8, 1982 Page 3