04/14/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- e - torica1 background needed, it might be supplied by staff in a special meet- ing with those Council members desiring it. Mr. Chenkin noted two series of meetings with the consultants, both study sessions and public meetings, all covered by written minutes. Mrs. Shirey recognized the background could be covered by reading that material, but she felt it was a matter of what was to be discussed with Springfield and putting that in terms of Eugene's position. She felt that position could come as a result of discussions with the Eugene planning commission. Councilwoman Bea1 added that the Commission's statements were ambiguous and she favored discussion to determine what was meant. Bill Sugaya, planner, referred,to the suggestion that Council and co-ordinating committee deliberations on the commercial study could occur concurrently and said the co-ordinating committee could be considering this issue fairly soon because of a request from Springfield concerning the airport property there and possible use of that land for a regional center. At this point, he said, , staff recommendation was that the co-ordina ting commi ttee should discuss that particular issue, and that was also the recommendation of LCOG and Lane County planning staffs. He felt the possibility of that shopping c~nter would be discussed in context with the commercja.l study, so there was the possibility of getting into the issue of the study anyway. He expected the co-ordinating committee to be convening within two or three weeks. Councilman Murray hoped that if the motion to refer back to joint discussion of Council and Planning Commission passed, and the co-ordinating comm.ittee d.id meet before Eug~ne's position was [ina1.izcd, the committee would be made aware that Eugene was a ttemptiny to determi nei ts posi hon on the issue. Councilman flaws saw the co-ordinating committee's work as gathering information as much as anything. He tel t he could favor both [>os,i tions - referring to the co-ordinating com- mittee and at the same time referring to joint discuss.ion of the Council and Commission. In response to Councilman Keller's inquiry about recommenations on the balance of the L&B study, Mr. Chenkin said there were seven recommendations made by the consul tants. The Planning Commissions's suggest.ions on each of those recommendations would constitute the Commission's recommendation on the total report. Mr. Sugaya added that those other than 1, 2, and 5 (presented here) would be more specific in terms of taking action at this point rather than going back to the commissions. Assistant Manager said the Planning Commission was asking specific disposition of these three recommendations at this time, they were the most critical and would have some impact on the other four. He suggested that if the Council desired further discussion with the Commission before final action, tentative approval might be given on these three with the idea of bringing all seven recommendations back in a single, final comprehensive presentation. Vote was taken on referring Recommendation 1 back to the Planning Commission for joint discussion with the Council. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Keller voting no. Comm 3/26/75 Approve In response to Mr. Bradley's request that the discussion be scheduled as soon as possible, Mr. Chenkin said that because of regular commission meeting and public hearings already scheduled, a joint session could not be held during the next week. Mr. Bradley moved that the Council request the Springfield City Council to defer, postpone, or continue at their option any action on request presented to it for rezoning the Springfield airport property until Eugene had its public hearing with regard to regional shopping centers. There was no second. 4/14/75 - 13 \loS