Item 5 - PH on Laurel Hill Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DRAFT Committee (CIC), to define the procedures for obtaining public input. He expected that effort to begin in mid-winter. Mr. Belcher asked if individuals and representatives of organizations and businesses could submit suggestions for code amendments. Mr. Nystrom said that they could. Mr. Lawless asked if the commission wished to remove any of the proposed amendments from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Belcher indicated he would reserve comments on the amendment related to the 50- foot height restriction to a later date. No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. Ms. Colbath moved, seconded by Ms. McMillan, to accept the proposed amendments. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. III. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF OCTOBER 26, 2004 Associate Planner Shawna Adams reviewed the proposed actions relating to the Kaufman Senior Center that would be the subject of the commission's October 26, 2004, public hearing. She stated the commission would be asked to forward a recommendation to the City Council baSed on approval criteria set forth in the staff briefing statement. She noted that the City owned the property and had initiated the proposed land use actions, which were specific to the Kaufman House site. She said that findings from the city attorney would be available at the public hearing, tentatively scheduled for November 22, 2004, with council action scheduled on December 6, 2004. She distributed copies of letters from Satre Associates, Emerald Empire Council on Aging, and Jefferson Westside Neighborhood. Mr. Belcher noted that he had been a board member and officer of the Jefferson Westside Neighborhood prior to April 2004. Since April 2004, he said, he had attended association meetings but left when the subject of the Kaufman House was raised and had held no discussions with others on the subject. He said he felt he could render an impartial decision and asked if the commission had any concerns. The other commissioners concurred that he could be impartial. IV. ALTERNATIVE PATHS Planning Director Susan Muir provided an overview of the item. She said that the purpose was to investigate options in order to develop recommendations to forward to the council for its consideration. She said that the council was enthusiastic about developing an alternate path and had expressed an interest in what other jurisdictions were doing, particularly in approaches that would provide greater public involvement at the beginning of a process rather than at the end. She said that one option could be a variation of the adjustment review process and asked for feedback from the commission on the joint meeting and direction to staff on alternate paths. Ms. Levis commented that the joint meeting was successful, although not all councilors participated in the discussion of alternate paths and she was uncomfortable moving forward until it was clear that the interest was not limited to one or two councilors. She suggested outreach to all councilors to determine their interest in alternate paths and then development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the council clarifying the purpose and intent of the commission's work on alternate paths. MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 2