Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Hledik said the Commission was getting requests to "tweak" refinement plans. He <br />added this did not set a precedent, in that the request was limited to the specific project, <br />and approvals would be withdrawn if the project did not proceed. He added that the <br />process did provide a way to bring refinement plans forward to the present. The <br />Commission regularly dealt with refinement plans adopted many years ago, and <br />circumstances had changed and there were not sufficient resources to amend refinement <br />plans. It was hoped that Opportunity Siting and In1111 Compatibility Standards would <br />help bridge the gap. <br /> <br />Ms. Kneeland said her concern was not limited to the text amendment but also a concern <br />about the interpretation of the ECLS policy and the River Road/Santa Clara refinement <br />plan. <br /> <br />Ms. Kneeland offered a friendly amendment to the motion: There <br />would be an addition to the findings that these interpretations of <br />the findings \vere specific to the application before the <br />Commission and in the context that the unique situation was a <br />transition of a former school site to another function. <br /> <br />Mr. Flock expressed discomfort with moving forward with the motion on the table, and <br />proposed staff return to the Commission with revised language to ensure that all of the <br />Commission's concerns had been captured. <br /> <br />Mr. Nystrom said some of the comments made could be captured in findings, while <br />others needed to be forwarded to the City Council as issues the Commission vwestled <br />with. He opined it would be beneficial to capture some of the concerns in a narrative <br />statement to the City Council. <br /> <br />Ms. Kneeland withdrew her friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Following further discussion, Mr. Duncan noted the Commission was confident staff <br /> <br />MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission <br /> <br />November 19,2007 <br /> <br />Page 9 <br />