Laserfiche WebLink
Speaking to the issue of political pressure, Mr. Meisner pointed out that residents often know they will have <br />an opportunity to testify before the council on an issue and may bypass the commission process. He <br />believed the testimony the commission received still gave it sense of what the council could expect. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner recalled that two councilors had been assigned to work with the commission on the Growth <br />Management Study, which had worked well and helped to bridge communication gaps. He suggested a <br />similar approach be considered in the future for some projects. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 said he would have liked to have had dialogue with the commission regarding its Crest Drive area <br />street classifications recommendations. He thought it would be useful for the council and commission to <br />meet more often, such as twice annually. He apologized that the commission had not been involved in the <br />reprioritization of the Planning Division's work program. He hoped the commission shared those priorities. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly liked the idea of a twice-a-year check-in and reiterated that a memorandum from the commission <br />on its recommendations would be useful. He also liked the idea of more dialogue between the council and <br />commission. <br /> <br />Ms. McMillan thought the commission could play a role in providing a more global review of issues, and <br />she assured the mayor that the commission took that element of its job seriously. She said commissioners <br />did not think of themselves as being part of any particular neighborhood or area of the city, but considered <br />themselves representatives of the entire community and looked at the city as a whole. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey urged the commission to make sure its message was loud and clear to the public so the more <br />global messages were not obscured. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher reviewed the commission's progress on mixed-use neighborhood planning. He invited <br />comments at this point in the presentation. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the new energy and ideas, but expressed frustration it was taking so <br />long for the City to implement mixed-use development. There was no actual example of mixed-use <br />development or redevelopment for the council to point to demonstrate the results of the approach. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly spoke to the issue of NIMBY, saying it was essential to get neighborhood buy-in for development, <br />but the community had to accommodate growth. He suggested that the City establish growth targets for <br />each neighborhood based on existing population. The City could work collaboratively with the neighbor- <br />hood on how to accommodate that growth. Mr. Kelly said that articulating the goals of mixed-use <br />development was important. He suggested one goal related to transportation, and noted the City was subject <br />to State mandates related to transportation with which it was not in compliance. He suggested that the <br />commission consider that issue, and what to do if the City was unable to meet the mandates. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked what happened to the money allocated for the site-specific node planning and code changes. <br />Ms. Muir said it had been used in tandem with the State Transportation Growth Management (TGM) funds <br />for the mixed-use development planning project. Mr. Kelly requested a rough accounting of those funds. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor liked the mixed-use concept and the idea of more neighborhood consultation. She pointed out <br />the City had a goal of protecting established neighborhoods. She expressed concern about the three types of <br />mixed-use areas being contemplated by the commission, as the council had previously decided against <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 2004 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />