11/20/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the city manager - be authorized to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the University of Oregon and the State Board of Higher Education to implement the commission and development of the Riverfront Research Park, and that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this tirne. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously 7:0. Council Bill 2862 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all coun- cilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and became Ordinance No. 19366. Ms. Briner said a joint lunch with the State Board of Higher Education was scheduled for December or January. Ms. Wooten asked staff to return before the luncheon with a process to involve others in the community and the UO in decision-making. IV. PLANNING COMMISSION/DOWNTOWN COMMISSION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (merno, background information distributed) Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow introduced the agenda item. e Planning Director Susan Brody presented the staff report. She said background information included 11 areas involving the Planning and Downtown Commissions, along with the current codes and the processes used to date. She said issues and problems also were reviewed and future processes were proposed. Ms. Brody said the report had been reviewed and approved by both commissions, adding that the process had been useful in clarifying ways the two commissions might work better together. She also said communication will also be helped by the arrangement in which the Planning director now serves as an ex officio mernber on the Downtown Commission, and the Development director serves in the same capacity on the Planning Commission. She said staff was seeking approval of the report and direction to use the processes proposed in structuring the deliberations and actions of the two commissions. Ms. Ehrman asked whether the possibility of joint hearings had been exarnined as part of the proposed process for the Downtown Plan (background, Page 3). She said her concern was that often the same people testified at rnore than one hearing, and she added that the bodies still would be expected to hold sepa- rate deliberations and to come up with their own proposals. Ms. Brody said that idea had been addressed in the discussion relating to the Urban Plan Renewal Update. She said joint hearings could be done for the Downtown Plan update and arnendments, adding that they rnight be most appropriate when consi- dering simple amendments rather than a major update. On a major update, Ms. Brody said she favored an initial public hearing and a second hearing incorporating public testirnony. Ms. Ehrman encouraged including the possibi- e lity of joint hearings. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 1985 Page 5