CCMinutes - 02/09/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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