05/01/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- early June to determine which items would be studied and considered during the review. Specific plan recommendations should be forwarded to the three planning commissions by the end of the summer, so that public hearings can be held and recommendations can be made. MPC would then work with any areas of disagreement before sending them to the council. Ms. Bishow said items that address progress made since the Metro Plan was adopted reflect a need to respond to changes in the community or are minor plan amendments generally recommended for consideration during review. Some items seem to warrant additional staff resources and special studies. These items are generally recommended for consideration after the mid-period review and prior to the next major plan update. A few items proposed major changes to the plan or addressed the plan's fundamental principles. They are recommended for consideration during the update process. No issues have been dropped out of consideration. Of 89 issues, consensus was reached by the three local planning commissions and MAPAC on 72. MPC will focus attention on the 17 items with differences. Fifty-six of the 89 items are recommended for consideration during the review. e Ms. Anderson introduced the first item of discussion, re-examining the tone of the plan, which is recommended by the Chamber of Commerce and outlined in no. 2, page IV-1. She said the Chamber had clarified that it was interested only in text changes to reflect a position that was not anti-growth. Ms. Anderson said the Eugene Planning Commission felt that text changes could be accomplished as part of the review. In response to Ms. Ehrman's question, Ms. Anderson said the Chamber had offered some specific examples of changes they wanted. Ms. Mulder suggested that the other commissions perhaps had not been informed that the proposed change was strictly to wording, and that might explain the different recommendations. Ms. Wooten said she did not feel the language of the plan was anti-growth. Ms. Bascom read from part of one proposal, and Ms. Brody said that was a first draft that later had been clarified to include only editorial changes. She said staff members were satisfied that the changes would not shift the focus of the plan, but were mainly intended to change wording that could be perceived as anti-growth by those outside the community. Ms. Ehrman asked whether a determination on each issue was to be made. Ms. Anderson said she understood that the Planning Commission wanted to inform the Council about its recommendations. Ms. Wooten said staff had suggested that part of the charge is to inform representatives on the Metropolitan Planning Committee of what Councilors' preferences are. Members agreed to hold discussion on each issue one-by-one. Mr. Gaydos returned to discussion of the proposed plan changes, saying that he thought changes might not be necessary, but that a determination whether changes were needed could be made as part of the review. Ms. Wooten said the e MINUTES--City Council/Planning Commission work session May 1, 1985 Page 3