05/01/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Ms. Anderson said the Planning Commission had recommended study for no. 13, the proposal to add text creating a metropolitan planning commission. She said the commission felt that if a metro planning commission were created, it could mean significant changes that should be done before the update. Mr. Gaydos said he thought the decision should be made before the update so it would not require a great deal of time during the update. Ms. Anderson introduced the final two issues, nos. 4 and 5 on page IV-5. She said the other planning commissions and MAPAC had suggested review status. The Eugene Planning Commission felt that more studies would be involved for other similar parcels, and that a change in the Land Use Diagram could be better evaluated after studies have been made. Ms. Brody added that the need was no longer as pressing because Goodwill will be located in the building and is permissible in an industrial area. Ms. Anderson said no. 5 was a proposal to expand commercial use in the area of Eugene Sand and Gravel and G.I. Joe's. She said the Planning Commission had denied the owners a rezoning request, and they had then presented a modified version of the request as part of the review. She said the Planning Commission felt that it would be helpful to have the Commercial Land Study completed before a decision is made. Mr. Rutan asked if the study would be moved up so that it could be completed sooner. Ms. Anderson said the study would not be complete by the review period. Ms. Wooten said consensus appeared to have been reached on all but two issues, and she opened the floor for other items of discussion. Ms. Wooten asked what was likely to happen on the LCC Basin and Seavey Loop proposals. Ms. Anderson said the proposals still were being recommended to be put off. Mr. Gaydos said the Metro Plan sets direction for studying the LCC Basin. He added that the availability of public services was one area in which the basin differed from the industrial triangle. Mr. Holmer asked when the update process would begin and whether there would be another chance to review the update work program. Ms. Brody said that was a good idea, and it could be helpful to get together during the study period to share some of the work and discuss the scope of the update. Ms. Wooten suggested making a note of that. Mr. Gordon referred to item 1 on page IV-l, looking at the plan amendment process. He said staff is working on the substance of that issue and has received direction from MPC on areas of agreement. He said many community concerns had been expressed about the plan amendment process. He explained that the next step is to go to MPC, where members will attempt to resolve the 17 issues with differences. Staff will then analyze the items to be considered during the review and forward recommendations to MPC. MPC is scheduled to forward recommendations to the three jurisdictions sometime in July. A package of amendments to the Metropolitan Plan will be the subject of planning commission hearings during September and October, and eventually MINUTES--City Council/Planning Commission work session May 1, 1985 Page 6