Laserfiche WebLink
in support of the amendment, and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson returned to the subject of nodal development and said she took seriously the council's <br />most recent communication from the Planning Commission. The issue appeared to be that, even though <br />the City might ultimately have to do site-specific planning, the underlying ordinance did not work <br />correctly. She said that if the council proceeded before the ordinance was revised, it was creating more <br />work for itself and residents. Ms. Nathanson supported the position of the Planning Commission that <br />more work on the ordinance was required. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to substitute Item 42 (analyze <br /> the code to allow for medical facilities and make the most of hospital re- <br /> lated development opportunities) for Item 5(E) (emerging issues, civic <br /> center). <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Coyle indicated his belief that the effort for the two work <br />items was comparable. He suggested the potential it could be folded into the minor code amendments <br />process. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ advocated for the motion, saying the council need to plan for the move of the two hospitals and <br />ensure that other medical facilities could be accommodated nearby. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Coyle said that Item 42 addressed the issue of ancillary <br />hospital uses that would develop around a new hospital, but not necessarily on the hospital's property. <br />Mr. Pap~ said he wanted to know if the existing zoning was adequate for anything from a two-person <br />doctor's office to a 30-person medical clinic and everything in between. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman believed if a clinic wanted to relocate near a hospital, its owners could request a zone <br />change. Zones were in place to create predictability about the future for residents and business owners. <br />She did not think the City should be using planning to make blanket zone changes to accommodate clinics <br />throughout the city. Ms. Bettman said the item did not rise to the level of the item proposed to be <br />removed, planning for a new civic center, which was a process that had already had begun and one which <br />benefited the entire community. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he was interested in seeing how Eugene could better accommodate some proposed clinic <br />uses. He acknowledged that a specific developer with a plan had come forward, and said if that was Mr. <br />Papa's concern, then no wholesale zoning changes were needed. He suggested rather that the council hold <br />a work session to see what accommodations could be made for the development in question. He did not <br />support the switch being proposed. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson thought the council had already indicated to staff it had interest in studying different <br />combinations of how public safety services could be housed with other agencies or with City Hall in a <br />joint use facility. She thought that item should be included in down town and court-related projects. If <br />that was the case, she was happy to support the motion. Ms. Nathanson endorsed Mr. Coyle's suggestion <br />that the council process the issue through the minor code amendments process. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said Mr. Coyle's comments about the required scope of work led him to agree with Ms. <br />Nathanson. He thought the description of Item 42 overstated the question. He found the idea the issue <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />