CC Minutes - 04/23/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

identified by staff for hospital use contained parcels that could appropriately be put to that use, but he thought the council needed to take into account the significance of such a development to the community. He thought that an overlay zone could be fairly simple, given that an outline of the zone design already existed, and then applied quickly anywhere to accommodate either hospital. Ms. Nathanson wanted to ensure that Eugene had a hospital in five years. She agreed with Ms. Taylor that the proposal before the council was satisfactory. She shared Mr. Kelly's concern about scale and asked the extent to which the City could combine use and scale; for example, a use under a certain square footage threshold would be allowed outright in a particular zone. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern about the amount of time an overlay zone would take to create, jeopardizing other council planning priorities and the Planning Division's ability to respond to community requests for assistance because the task would strain the division's resources. She also feared that the rules of such a zone would be onerous because they would be applied everywhere, rather than in a site-specific manner. Ms. Nathanson asked if the City could be more accommodating without changing the code. She asked if, for example, the conditional use permit process could be modified. Speaking to Mr. Kelly's comments, Mr. Coyle said there were other constraints on locating a hospital in a C-1 zone besides scale; for example, there was no parcel of adequate size in a C-1 zone. He said that he had not yet reviewed the individual zones to explain why it would not be a problem. Mr. Coyle believed that the staff recommendation got the council where it wanted to go in a short period of time. He disagreed about the amount of time it would take to develop an overlay zone. He said that the overlay zone added another layer of complexity in terms of regulations and then the zone must be sited. There were also issues of internal consistency. Mr. Coyle did not envision a simple process. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Nathanson's goal of having a hospital in five years. He did not want to make it more difficult for a hospital to site in Eugene. He asked Mr. Coyle what the council needed to fear or anticipate, noting his agreement that there was no C-1 site of sufficient size to accommodate a hospital, so he questioned amending the code to allow hospitals in that zone. Mr. Meisner asked if lands in different zones would need to be combined to accommodate a new hospital, and if the City could accommodate that. He asked what the zoning was on the potential hospital sites the council had previously reviewed. Ms. Childs said the City had not spent much time looking at specific sites because there were no hospital siting experts on staff. Mr. Meisner asked if the City had single-zone sites adequate for a hospital. Ms. Childs did not think so. She said the staff recommendation was intended to suggest the quickest, easiest way to enable a hospital to site in Eugene. Staff had discussed that the City could, within permitted uses, establish standards to address issues of scale. She believed that Ms. Nathanson's suggestion that the City combine use and scale could be examined through the Planning Commission and City Council public process. Mr. Meisner thought the City' role was to enable rather than to prevent, and hoped the City was acting collaboratively with McKenzie-Willamette Hospital on the siting issue. Mr. Coyle said that some of the sites that might be used for a hospital included both residential and industrial zones. Staff was proposing to allow the use to be considered in the residential zones, and as an outright use in industrial zones. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2003 Page 2