Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the <br /> motion by directing that staff modify the recommendation to <br /> require that the hospital use be on an arterial or collector street, <br /> and that any adjustments to residential standards require a <br /> conditional use permit. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly questioned whether the amendment was actually responsive to what the two local <br />hospitals needed. He said that PeaceHealth had indicated that its concerns were focused on the <br />Hilyard campus, and its representatives were satisfied by the provisions of the ordinance. <br />McKenzie-Willamette Hospital offered very general comments. Neither provider gave direction <br />to the City as to what they preferred to see. Mr. Kelly suggested that the council defer action on <br />bringing back the ordinance until the council adopted the resolution, which would provide a <br />facilitator that would allow the City to work with the hospital on what was wanted. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 asked for a definition of hospital that did not include language regarding the certificate <br />of need. Mr. Klein said that was one of the definitions under consideration. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 said he preferred to act on the zoning ordinance prior to the resolution so the hospitals <br />had certainty about what to expect when attempting to site a facility. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman supported the conditional use permit (CUP) approach in residential zones because it <br />provided a level of protection that did not exist in the staff-proposed ordinance. Regarding the <br />issue of locating a hospital on a collector or arterial, Ms. Bettman said there were many <br />neighborhood streets that were collector streets, and she expressed concern about locating a <br />hospital on such a street. She asked if any of the ten sites previously identified by staff as <br />potential hospital sites would be affected by the amendment. Mr. Coyle recalled that the ten sites <br />in question were the candidate sites for inducements, which was the subject of the resolution. He <br />indicated that none of those sites were on non-arterial or non-collector streets. The motion would <br />not impact those sites, but it would affect the Zoning Code, which applied to all land inside the <br />city. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman believed that the ten sites in question encompassed the range of possibilities, and <br />asked if there were sites outside the ten sites where a hospital could locate. Mr. Carlson recalled <br />testimony before the council suggesting that a hospital could be located anywhere in the <br />community. The intent of the amendment would preclude a hospital from locating anywhere. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman suggested that the reference in the amendment to collectors could be omitted <br />without impacting any of the ten sites. Ms. Nathanson accepted as a friendly amendment a <br />suggestion from Ms. Bettman, who seconded the amendment, to use the phrase ~arterial or major <br />collector." <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner questioned the speed at which the process was moving. He said he supported the <br />amendment with the addition of the friendly amendment. However, at this time, he was unsure of <br />his vote on the final ordinance. Mr. Meisner pointed out that there were neighborhoods in the <br />community that were residential in nature but not zoned residential. There were also sites that <br />could be considered in areas that were in industrial uses but were zoned for residential use. He <br />asked staff about the impact of limiting the amendment to the zoning and designation of land as <br />opposed to use. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2003 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />