Laserfiche WebLink
With the permission of her second, Ms. Bettman withdrew her motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson commented that sites with existing medical facilities were not counted in the <br />available land inventory for residential land. She opined that the proposal behind the residential <br />requirement was unfair and commented that it would drive out neighborhood-based medical <br />facilities. <br /> <br /> Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the motion to delete <br /> the words "...but to require that any expansion of such facilities provide at <br /> least 60 percent of the expansion area for housing within the building or on <br /> the development site." <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey was supportive of the amendment. He said that the council was running the risk of <br />not utilizing land to its full potential. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly reiterated that the issue was availability of residential land. He disagreed with Ms. <br />Nathanson that the land was not needed for residential use. He commented that just because it <br />was not counted in the Residential Lands Study did not mean the land would not be a valuable <br />addition to available residential land. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow reiterated that, under the April 2000 Draft Code language, the moment the code went <br />into effect, only medical facilities in R-3 and R-4 that had 60 percent housing on the lot would be <br />conforming uses, unless it was clarified that it was facilities established after the date of the <br />adoption of the ordinance that were required to have housing. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor was against the amendment. He called for staff to bring back a recommendation. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman was also against the amendment. She commented that including residential uses <br />on the site of the facilities was consistent with other decisions the council had made and with <br />goals to create walkable transit accommodating land use patterns. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said that the language of the proposed ordinance might require an expanding facility to <br />add a second story with a footprint that was larger than the lower story. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer said that any part of the code could be adopted in a way that pertained to only new <br />development and existing uses could be grandfathered in. He added that existing facilities could <br />be grandfathered in if they were less than a certain size. He said that the code could apply to <br />anything new, but there were a variety of ways to handle existing facilities. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ commented that the proposed ordinance, without the amendment, would be <br />discouraging legitimate expansions of existing facilities. <br />Mr. Meisner disagreed with Mr. Pap~. He opposed the amendment. He did not think that most of <br />the existing facilities were neighborhood clinics. He expressed a desire for staff to come up with <br />language to clarify that the council was not asking for an unreasonable investment in the future, <br />but if an expansion was such that it could support the development of residential use. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Meisner. She said that medical facilities in neighborhoods were <br />frequently detrimental rather than beneficial. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 20, 2000 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />