CCMinutes - 02/09/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

could be addressed through the minor amendments process appealing. He was also reluctant to eliminate the civic center proposal. Mr. Coyle said that through the minor amendments process, staff could return with a proposal regarding the location of ancillary medical uses not on a hospital site. Mr. Meisner said in that case, he would not support the amendment on the floor and would trust staff to work the issue through the minor amendments process as described. Mayor Torrey indicated interest in attempting to accomplish the intent of the motion. He agreed with Mr. Kelly that there was also an issue related to timing of a particular development. He wanted to facilitate the development being proposed if possible. He asked staff not to make the process so difficult the development opportunity was lost. Mayor Torrey asked if there was anything the City could do to avoid a long and drawn out land use process. Mr. Coyle said staff would move as quickly as possible. Mr. Pap6 said he wanted to move ahead with a civic center but did not know where the money would come from. He thought it should be planned for but he anticipated nothing would happen for something to 18 to 24 months. Mr. Pap6 said he had been contacted by many doctors and clinic operators who wanted the City to find a site for the hospital so they knew where to relocate. Mr. Poling believed the community need to prepare for the future and perhaps review some of the definitions related to clinics in the Land Use Code because of emerging technologies and advancements in the medical field. Ms. Bettman said the issue was identified in the post-LUCU work program in the form of updating the zoning map. She said the City could not change zoning for clinics without impacting other kinds of zoning. She believed such piecemeal changes bestowed a benefit on one use while possibly creating liabilities for other uses. Ms. Bettman questioned prioritizing this item above housing standards. Mayor Torrey asked whether, given the discussion, the motion provided adequate direction to staff. Mr. Coyle believed the scope of the effort being requested was broader than meeting the needs of a particular development yet narrower than the scope of effort reflected in Item 42. For purposes of clarity, Mr. Pap~ withdrew his motion. Mr. Poling withdrew his second. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct staff to analyze the code to allow for medical facilities through Item 2 (minor code amend- ments). Ms. Nathanson supported the motion. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's comments, Ms. Nathanson said the council was not prioritizing this item above housing standards given the passage of the previous motion. Her support for the motion was based on her interest in ensuring that medical clinics and doctor's offices were able to locate near a hospital and serve residents in Eugene. Ms. Taylor did not think the issue should take priority over other urgent issues. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to add Item 41 (LUCU re- mand and Chapter 6 tree provisions) to the high-priority list. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 11 Work Session