Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nathanson expressed her desire for a motion that simply stated that it was the council's <br />intent to ask staff to provide the maximum flexibility for analyzing the site. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs said that the term "development site" allowed the most flexibility. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner stressed the importance of meeting minimum densities in R-3 and R-4 zoned lands. <br /> <br />It was accepted as a friendly amendment that the council wanted to see a minimum residential <br />density met when there were any nonresidential uses on a site. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly expressed his expectation that staff would notify the council if its decisions caused <br />unintended consequences. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend the code to limit nonresidential uses in residential zones to nodal <br /> development areas only. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman commented that mixed uses were being allowed citywide when they were strategies <br />that were originally discussed in terms of nodal development. She commented that it would be <br />more difficult to encourage development within nodes when it was being allowed citywide. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly commented that the city was a long way from distinguishing nodal from nonnodal. As <br />an example, he observed that nodal had more strict floor area ratios. He said that the issue <br />deserved study and should be a line item in the work plan, but added that he would not support <br />the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he would not support the motion for the same reasons as Mr. Kelly. He <br />added that he was interested in closely examining the list of nonresidential uses permitted in <br />residential zones. He commented that he lived in a mixed-use area and liked having access to <br />some commercial uses in the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, with permission of her second, withdrew the motion. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend the code to prohibit methadone clinics in residential zones and allow <br /> them in C-2, C-3, C-4, and I-2 zones when the property was within 1/4 mile of <br /> a transit stop. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the impetus behind the motion, Ms. <br />Bettman said that she had seen problems in four different neighborhoods over the last eight <br />years. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson commented that methadone clinics were not the only kind of clinic to worry about <br />in residential zoned areas. She commented that there was already a State law that prohibited <br />clinics next to a daycare facility or a school. <br /> <br />Mike McKerrow of the Planning and Development Department agreed that there were State laws <br />that addressed siting of methadone clinics. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 20, 2000 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />