Laserfiche WebLink
<br />could draft ilndings that reflected the concerns of the Commission. Mr. Duncan called <br />for the vote on the motion. <br /> <br />The motion passed 4:2, with Mr. Carroll and Ms. Kneeland voting <br />in opposition. <br /> <br />Ms. Kneeland confirmed that the dissenting views would be represented in the findings. <br /> <br />Mr. McCown noted that the 2004 housekeeping issues shifted the site in question to <br />residential, and it was unclear to him what had occurred. He asked how many additional <br />properties had been impacted and if there could be some clarification offered about the <br />process before the issue came to the Commission again. <br /> <br />Mr. Nystrom stated stafT could provide background information on the issue. <br /> <br />IV. W ALNUT STATION MIXED USE CENTER UPDATE <br /> <br />Mr. Dedrick offered the staff report. He explained he, along with Lydia McKinney and <br />Neil Bjorkhmd, had assumed staffing on the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Dedrick reviewed the history of the project. Phase One of the Walnut Station Mixed <br />Use Develop Plan resulted in an "emerging vision" consisting of design elements that had <br />broad support. Phase One also produced a list of twelve key issues, since condensed to <br />eleven, that were presented in the form of a "preferred alternative" to the Planning <br />Commission on March 20 and May 8, 2006. The Commission declined to endorse the <br />entire staff-recommended "preferred alternative" since several key design elements of the <br />plan had not been resolved. The Planning Commission suggested that staff work to <br />resolve each of the key issues, which ,vas the primary focus of Phase Two. While the <br />Planning Commission had discussed several of those issues, including Franklin <br />Boulevard and EmX, this report was intended to provide a summary of the staff <br /> <br />MfNUTES-Eugcne Planning Commission <br /> <br />November 19,2007 <br /> <br />Page 10 <br />