Laserfiche WebLink
In response to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding whether it was a good strategy to pursue <br />mixed-use in the same building, Mr. Farmer recommended pursuing mixed-use in buildings as <br />much as possible. He raised concern that if it was mandated as the only option it would retard <br />housing development and mixed use. He stressed his recommendation to allow flexibility for <br />separate buildings to provide a mixed usage of the same site. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow explained the next group of motions, beginning with E. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson commented that expansion of existing medical facilities should be allowed <br />without requiring residential development on the same site at the time of the expansion. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he was more interested in Ms. Bettman's suggestion to grandfather the <br />existing uses, but when significant expansion occurred then some portion of the expansion area <br />should be designated to housing, either within the building or on the site. He suggested dropping <br />the requirement of housing for any expansion and put in a percentage of expansion that would <br />trigger the need to include residential in the development. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly commented that it was an issue of preserving residential land. He liked Ms. Bettman's <br />motion #5 but suggested replacing "any expansion" with "significant expansion." <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend the code to grandfather existing medical facilities in R-3 or R-4 from <br /> the requirement to provide residential use on the property, but to require that <br /> any significant expansion of such facilities provide at least 60 percent of the <br /> expansion area for housing within the building or on the development site. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 raised concern with forcing an expanding medical practice to provide 60 percent of the <br />expansion as residential. He commented that financing would be difficult to get for such an idea. <br />He urged the council to think hard about the motion. He suggesting making the code flexible <br />enough so that the facilities could expand without requiring residential development on a portion <br />on the site. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor questioned the definition of "significant expansion." <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor also raised concern over the definition of significant expansion. She believed that the <br />term could be manipulated. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman also called for a definition of significant expansion. She commented that the <br />proposed ordinance should be triggered at a reasonable threshold. She expressed a desire to <br />see the proposed ordinance expanded to R-2 as well. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to amend the original <br /> motion to include R-2 zoned land. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow said that medical clinics were not permitted in R-2 land, so the code would have to <br />first be amended to allow the use and then amended to include the residential requirement. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 20, 2000 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />