CC Minutes - 09/20/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bishow added that other facilities that were distinguished in the draft code were blood banks, correctional facilities, and plasma centers. She said that methadone clinics were another example of a type of facility that perhaps needed a special review. Mr. Kelly raised concern over banning clinics because of the clients that used it. He stressed that the rule must apply to all clinics. Mr. Rayor agreed with Mr. Kelly and expressed his own concern over segregating specific facilities. He suggested sending the item back to staff for more study. Ms. Taylor commented that commercial areas were very accessible. She added that the clients of methadone clinics were often dangerous. She commented there were a number of things that did not belong in residential zones when one thought of children playing around the neighborhood. She commented that methadone clinics were not the only facilities that should be addressed in such a way. Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He commented that the placement of clinics had been unfairly placed in the central area of the city. He called for a worksession on the social services dispersal policy. Ms. Nathanson called for some staff comment on using the term "nonresidential drug treatment clinics." The motion passed, 5:2, with Mr. Kelly and Mr. Rayor voting in opposition. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Councilor PapS, to direct the City Manager to change the code to reduce the minimum lot width requirements for duplex divisions to 40 feet per side. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding whether there would be significant consequences to the motion, Ms. Bishow said that staff did not foresee any adverse consequences. The change would continue to allow narrower lot widths for duplex divisions. The motion passed, 6:1, with Ms. Bettman in opposition. Ms. Childs directed the council's attention to an item that it had begun to discuss at the September 18, 2000, work session. She said that, originally there had been a single motion that dealt with prohibiting both government and religious services on residentially zoned land. She said that the council had addressed the motion related to government services (the motion failed), but noted that the motion, as it pertained to religious services, still needed to be discussed. Mr. Kelly called for discussion before putting the motion on the table. He pointed out that if something was prohibited outright that was currently permitted a nonconforming use was immediately created, which may or may not have unintended consequences. He commented that, for him, it was an issue of compatibility with surrounding use. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 20, 2000 Page 7 Work Session