05/01/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Ms. Ehrman asked Planning Commission members whether there had been any problems with the workload resulting from the change in the appeal process. Ms. Anderson said the workload was less in terms of specific land use decisions because the hearings official was doing more. She said more, however, was being done by the commission in the policy area. Mr. Rutan said in the next process session, he would raise a concern about how downtown planning issues come to the Council. He said he was not comfortable with getting parallel recommendations from the Downtown Commission and the Planning Commission. He said he would request a review to see whether a more definitive process could be developed. Ms. Anderson said that was an issue of confusion to the Planning Commission as well. Ms. Brody said the same was true of the Downtown Commission, and staff was beginning to discuss the issue, identify the Downtown Plan implementation items expected over the next year, and plan a strategy for the interaction between the two commissions and council. Mr. Gaydos suggested that a conference might help to alleviate the problem of parallel recommendations. Mr. Holmer said one issue expected to come before the commission was the need for additional lanes on the Ferry Street Bridge. Ms. Wooten said she appreciated the thought and effort Planning Commission members had put into the Costco decision. e Mr. Prichard said he had noticed some deterioration of the local infrastructure, particularly the bike paths. Ms. Wooten said the Council was aware of that and would be discussing funding for maintaining and adding infrastructure as part of the Eugene Agenda. She suggested providing the Planning Commission with a summary of intentions and priorities. Ms. Wooten asked whether the Culture/Leisure Plan had been finished. Ms. Anderson said she and Mr. Thwing would be looking at the final draft after the meeting. The Planning Commission had finished its final recommendation, and Mr. Thwing said it was an extremely difficult process. He said the plan had been generated without any charge or direction, which was a problem. Ms. Anderson said the Planning Commission had tried to make it into an easily implemented plan. I. METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN MID-PERIOD REVIEW Ms. Bishow presented an overview of the issues raised during the mid-period review. She reviewed background materials and said Councilors and Commissioners in March had received another document containing more detail about public comments. She said the three planning commissions and MAPAC had recommended to MPC the time frame for considering the proposals, and MPC would begin considering the recommendations at the May 9 meeting. She said MPC probably would take until e MINUTES--City Council/Planning Commission work session May 1, 1985 Page 2