Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly commented that he would find it helpful to get a sense of the discussion that lead to <br />Planning Commission decisions and not just the decision itself. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the work plan submitted by the commission had two things that he thought <br />were missing. The first was the desirability of a alternate or performance path for some of the <br />items in the update. The second item was neighborhood refinement plan updates, which was a <br />significant issue to him personally. He stressed the importance of addressing neighborhoods that <br />had no plan at all. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman commented that the proposed work plan was a formidable one. She echoed Mr. <br />Kelly in his concern that there were areas of the City that needed updated neighborhood <br />refinement plans as well as areas that lacked such plans. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ raised concern that the council was delving too deeply into work that the commission <br />had already covered. <br /> <br />Regarding issues in the future, Mr. Pap8 suggested a separate code for the downtown district. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart also complimented the work of the Planning Commission. He reiterated Mr. Papa's <br />concern over the council delving too deeply into work that the commission had already done. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr believed that smaller towns surrounding Eugene had less concern over urban sprawl <br />than Eugene did. He asked how much time the commission spent discussing how Eugene's <br />growth policies affected smaller outlying communities. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson raised concern over implementation of policy. She called for information on how <br />the commission went about policy implementation. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor commented that much of LUCU was proscriptive. He said that this would provide a <br />certain amount of uniformity of policy for developers, but noted that until all the "bugs" were <br />worked out of the new code it would be hard to look at alternate paths. He raised concern that <br />bad developments would be able to result by using alternate paths that could exist. He <br />suggested applying the best pads of neighborhood refinement plans to the entire city. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey complimented the work of the Planning Commission. He expressed a desire to see <br />a financial impact statement for new employees necessitated by implementation of the code <br />update. <br /> <br />Ms. McMillan said that next year's work plan could possibly have room for a neighborhood <br />refinement plan update. <br /> <br />Mr. Bartel said that fiscal issues were the purview of the City Council while planning issues were <br />the purview of the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Regarding the suggestion of a separate code for the downtown area, Mr. Belcher said that a <br />downtown district needed to be accurately defined before a separate code could be discussed. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 25, 2000 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />