07/14/1986 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Chenkin reviewed changes described on page 4 of Exhibit A. He a 1 so reviewed the recommendations under the Transportation and Traffic Element. . Ms. Ehrman asked about the change on Jefferson Street from R-3 to R-2 or to R- 3/20 A. Ms. Anderson said John Stafford from the Neighborhood group had attended the work sessions. She added that the commission had liked the consistency with the plan in maintaining higher densities near downtown and had not felt that it would result in much change to the neighborhood. Mr. Chenkin reviewed the Public Facilities and Services Element. He noted that policies pertained to the li nco1 n School site, to the now closed Jefferson Pool, and to neighborhood crime. He said the plan findings and appendix contained additional information on crime in the neighborhood and how it compared to the rest of the Ci ty. He also reviewed the Neighborhood Character and Design Element. Mr. Chenkin said Chapter 7, Plan Implementation and Update Process, would be added to the draft plan, and he noted that the section included implementation priorities. Ms. Wooten asked about the Planning Commission's recommended changes to less restrictive language. She also asked whether the Planning Commission's recommendation to allow zoning processes to occur would be wasteful, given the. neighborhood's feelings and the policies to IIdiscourage" rezoning. Ms. Anderson said the commission had agreed with the neighborhood about the need to preserve its integrity, but commissioners had objected to the total ban and had felt that the hearings official could make equally effective decisions according to recommended language. Mr. Chenkin said the commission had agreed e to retain the restrictive language in one instance, which would prohibit any additional mixed-use zoning to the west. Responding to Ms. Ehrman's question, staff said the neighborhood team had discussed opening Lawrence to two-way traffic, but not at great lengths. Mr. Chenkin repeated that the public hearing was scheduled for July 28, or could be postponed, and final action would be taken after any Metro Plan amendments had gone to the other jurisdictions involved. He sa i d further discussions could be scheduled as well. Ms. Bascom said she had never heard of a Scarlet Oak and thought it should be Scarlet Maple. Mr. Chenkin said he would check that. Mr. Chenkin said an update of the plan would be considered, but was not required, every five years. II. LCDC PERIODIC REVIEW--METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS Ms. Bishow said the Eugene Planning program acknowledgement in September 1982 had included acknowledgement of the urban portion of the Metropolitan Plan, and a local mid-period review of the Metro Plan had been called for two years later. She said that review had some of the same objectives as the periodic e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Session July 14, 1986 Page 3