Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Rayor about his assessment of the density issue. He was concerned, <br />however, about the impact of the use on the surroundings. In his experience, such uses <br />frequently resulted in lights, sirens, and ambulance traffic. He was comfortable with the motion <br />because assisted living was an outright use in Iow-density residential zones, and suggested that <br />spoke to Mr. Rayor's remarks about density. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow suggested as an alternative to prohibiting nursing homes that the council consider <br />using the conditional use permit process for at least larger nursing homes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to amend the motion to direct the <br /> City Manager to allow nursing homes in the R-1 zone with a conditional use <br /> permit, and to ensure that nursing homes uses meet minimum residential <br /> density requirements; in the R-1 zone nursing homes must meet the <br /> minimum density requirements of the R-2 zone. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said while he had some concerns about minimum densities, he preferred the main <br />motion. He agreed with Mr. Kelly about the impact of such uses on surrounding neighborhoods. <br /> <br /> The amendment to the motion failed, 4:2, Mr. Pap8 and Mr. Rayor voting yes. <br /> <br /> The main motion passed, 4:2; Mr. Pap8 and Mr. Rayor voting no. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend the code to prohibit parking between the street and the street facing <br /> facade of any buildings in residentially zoned areas, except for driveways <br /> associated with single-family or two-family residence. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman explained that the motion was intended to create a pedestrian-friendly, eyes-on-the- <br />street atmosphere. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked staff about the consequences of the motion, saying it essentially appeared to <br />preclude parking pads between the building and the street. Ms. Bishow said it would be a <br />challenge to write the code language, but indicated that staff understood the intent behind the <br />motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested that staff might develop an adjustment review process to address odd cases. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked about existing nonconforming uses. Ms. Bishow indicated staff would determine <br />where the standards were triggered or applicable and address that issue at that time. Mr. Rayor <br />asked about the impact of passing the motion on a multi-family house that currently had a parking <br />area between the street and building. Ms. Bishow said that the use would be a legal <br />nonconforming use that could function as it was but could not be expanded if it increased the <br />nonconformity. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He asked if there were other uses in R-3 or R-4 zones that <br />would be affected by the motion. Ms. Bishow said that nonresidential uses such as churches <br />and schools might have a different type of site plan where the motion would be problematic. She <br />said if the intent of the motion was to foster a certain appearance in the public realm, some type <br />of setback in which the standard applied might be in order. Mr. Meisner joined Mr. Kelly in his <br />comments related to the development of adjustment review processes. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 2000 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />