Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman explained her intent was to concentrate some uses into nodes to ensure they <br />become more attractive places to redevelop with the densities and uses the City wanted. She <br />said that the motion directed staff to develop a list of those uses. She thought uses such as a <br />post office, a substation, or a branch library were public uses that would be better off in a node <br />because they were neighborhood attractors in an area served by transit. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked Ms. Bettman what she meant by the word "appropriate." Ms. Bettman said that <br />her intent was that staff would develop a list of such uses for the council's review. Her intent was <br />to concentrate such uses into nodes. She had not developed a list of appropriate uses. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that he agreed there were certain uses it made sense to include in nodes, but he <br />wanted to ensure that the motion did not force all such uses into nodes. He said that fire <br />stations, for example, were sited on the basis of response time. Ms. Bettman indicated it was <br />not her intent to place all government uses in nodes. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs said her primary concern about the motion was that staff would soon be working with <br />the council on determining which nodes that would be implemented. She was not sure how easy <br />it would be to craft a list of appropriate government uses without more certainty about the <br />locations of the nodes. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner was unsure he supported the motion. He said that branch libraries attract people <br />from outside the immediate area and he was not sure he wanted to premise nodal development <br />upon situating attractors in the node. He said that some government uses would be more <br />appropriate in some nodes than in others. He questioned the impact of the motion on downtown <br />development. Ms. Childs was not sure. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor pointed out a City-owned swimming pool was a government use. Utility pump stations <br />were also government uses, and they were sited according to need. While he understood Ms. <br />Bettman's intent, he felt that the motion might be better as a future work plan item, when criteria <br />could be developed for siting those uses. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor did not think the motion was totally clear. She was not ready to support it at this time <br />because she did not understand the consequences. Mr. Pap~ agreed. He felt Mr. Rayor's points <br />were well-taken. In addition, government could include State and federal office buildings, and he <br />questioned how the City could dictate the actions of those agencies. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that the impact on the neighborhood from the post office on Willamette Street <br />was an example of the type of development that had led to the motion. She indicated she would <br />withdraw the motion at this time. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman withdrew her motion. Mr. Kelly withdrew his second. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend Table 9.2740 to require nursing homes to be subject to Special <br /> Standards in R-3 and R-4, and to prohibit (except to grandfather existing <br /> facilities) Nursing Homes in R-1 and R-2. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman explained efficient use of residential land was the basis for the motion. She said <br />that nursing homes were required to be one level and generally had a large building footprint with <br />lots of parking. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 2000 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />