|
<br />r,
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />i Coun.cilman Williams said any reversal in the Council's position would invol ve the"
<br />: Eugene Renewal Agency, public hearings on mall guidelines, etc., since at the time,
<br />1 the conduit was installed it was decided that an organized noise system was not '
<br />I I
<br />I appr~priate in the mall a~ea. The conduit was installed because it CO~ld ~e ~ut, f~.
<br />at t~me ,9f mall construct~on at much less expense than at some later t~me ~f ~t .;.,;;;
<br />; were found to be needed.
<br />
<br />. Discussi'on ,continued on reason for installation of the condui t, its purpose, its
<br />cost. as part of the ERA project, etc. Mrs. Beal suggested that until the policy is
<br />changed the Downtown Association make application direct to the Council for use of
<br />the sound system for special occasions. Manager said the question is whether to
<br />rel1kJve the existing wiring. Control of use could be a matter of future Council
<br />deliberation. Councilman Williams felt there was no question about removal of the
<br />! present wiring. He said he would not support authorization for a permanent sound
<br />system in the mall.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />MI. Williams l1kJved seconded by Mr. Murray that the Eugene Downtown Association be
<br />asked to carry out the conditions of permission for the present sound system, that
<br />is, that it would be removed at the end of the Christmas season. Motion carried,
<br />cp:_l",b.v9t,iJ1g aye, (HE!rsh!Jer alld Keller absent), except Mr. McDonald voting no.
<br />~- <>."...._..__,,.-___._...1.-.._ ~~~.._.._l no ._.. ;.. _.,_.__.__."._....~.~..~-'__..~'.:..._:I...._...~..._ .. '. :.-":':_:.'~,_._~---,:,
<br />
<br />F. :P1anning Process Dlscussion -'Manager referred to communications received from the
<br />.chamber of Commerce, Southwestern Oregon Chapter AIA, and some indi vidual archi teets,
<br />copies of which were previously distributed to Council members r questioning planning
<br />processes and time frames to get planning decisions. He suggested that discussion
<br />iat this time would not be on merits of planning or procedures, but on the manner of
<br />idealing with the requests for review and investigation by the Council.
<br />!
<br />!Wi th regard to the Chamber's letter, ste.,mng from the Chamber Board of Di rector's
<br />. !meeting of February 13, Manager said it seemed rrrJre critical and did not appear !
<br />;to reflect the minutes of that meeting. Manager saw the question raised by the 1,-
<br />iChamber as expressing some concern as to whether the 1990 General Plan is appropriate
<br />lfor this community and its attitude toward expansion. The architects' communications
<br />iwere more concerned with the functional processing of planning responsibilities and
<br />Itime consumed in getting decisions, the major concern appearing to be with the planned
<br />lunit development procedure because the time consumed reflects itself in costs. He.
<br />Isaid the Planning Commission is aware of the time problem and staff is now trying to
<br />I'address it from the standpoint of the ordinance itself which sets forth the procedural:
<br />requirements. Manager suggested that when staff work is completed, which may take .
<br />: another l1kJnth or so, the proposed revisions to the PUD ordinance be brought back for !
<br />,ipub1ic hearing. In making the revisions, staff is working closely with the architects:
<br />. groups and it is hop~ l1kJst of the questions raised will be reso1 ved in that process. I
<br />jHowever, if it is felt that there is sufficient public criticism at this point, .
<br />staff feels there should be public hearing to air the general kinds of problems.
<br />It was suggested the Council and Planning Comndssion appoint a joint comndttee to
<br />meet with the industry to hear their suggestions and problems and to respond to
<br />suggested staff recommendations. Manager suggested that a public hearing at this
<br />time would not be too productive.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Mayor said he felt nothing would be served by opening the matter to public hearing
<br />. at'this time. He recommended that even with a delay it would be better to wait
<br />for staff . response which would provide more information from both viewpoints and
<br />;better enable Council to make judgments. Mrs. Bea1 concurred and added that many
<br />of the questions raised could probably be resolved at staff level.
<br />
<br />,Councilman Williams asked clarification of the proposed procedure - was staff being
<br />asked to meet with the groups involved in an attempt to list the actual concerns
<br />and develop response to those concerns, then that entire document to be brought
<br />back to the Council? Manager said the approach at this time, recognizing problems
<br />wi th the PUD ordinance as staff sees them, would be to attempt to determine the
<br />problems from the developers, builders, etc., point of view, then develop revisions
<br />to the ordinance and administrative processing which would address those problems.
<br />Those revisions would be brought back to the Planning Comndssion and Council. It
<br />appears that work can not be accomplished in less than a month.
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />Mr. Williams asked if the work in process involves the Chamber's concerns, or whe-
<br />ther that would be treated as a separate issue. Mrs. Beal questioned too whether
<br />staff is dealing with the philosophical questions raised by the architects with
<br />regard to the entire planning process. Manager replied that the architects' group,
<br />after publicity on the Chamber's questions, inquired about their request since it
<br />appeared their concerns were different from those of the Chamber. Mrs. Bea1 sug-
<br />gested Manager be asked to discuss with the architects and the Chamber whether his
<br />suggested procedure was satisfactory. Mayor Anderson felt two issues were involved,
<br />the Chamber questioning the philosophy of planning processes in Eligene, and the
<br />!architects questioning procedural and policy matters. Manager noted that that
<br />portion of the Chamber's communication referring to questions raised by developers,
<br />would be addressed with the suggested procedure.
<br />
<br />55
<br />
<br />.2/261f7'3--':"-7'
<br />_ L:'.' '.J
<br />
<br />i,
<br />
<br />I
<br />i
<br />I
<br />i
<br />I
<br />1
<br />I
<br />
<br />Comm
<br />2/14/73
<br />Approve
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />\
<br />1
<br />I
<br />1
<br />1
<br />\
<br />1
<br />i
<br />!
<br />
<br />, ...J
<br />
|