CC Minutes - 07/14/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

returned the ordinance to the commission for further work. The remaining items that had been remanded were largely dependent on the completion of the Natural Resource Study as well as the ESEE analysis and needed protection measures. That was why there was no additional remand ordinance work on the work program in fiscal year 2004. Ms. Childs said that, realistically, the inventory and protection measures would not be done in time to bring the remaining remand issues back to the council in the next fiscal year. Mr. Meisner regretted the upcoming retirement of Ms. Childs and wished her luck in the future. He appreciated her ability to serve as a resource to the council and the brevity of her responses to council questions. Mr. Meisner asked Mr. Coyle to speak to the department's loss of staff, skill, history, and knowledge, saying that loss would make the commission's job more difficult. Regarding the LUCU, Mr. Meisner asked what the commission would do differently if it had the opportunity to do the process again. He asked how the commission felt about the LUCU and what the council had asked it to do with the LUCU. He requested a response in writing if possible. Ms. Bettman shared Mr. Meisner's regret about Ms. Childs' retirement. Ms. Bettman expressed enthusiasm about the commission's residential infill project and hoped to see some results soon. She hoped that the recommendations included some of the mitigating strategies she had mentioned earlier. She said that they were called for in the GMS policies but apparently that was not enough for staff to implement them. Ms. Bettman suggested that the commission might want to consider initiating some amendments to the LUCU that allowed the City to "add a little sugar with the medicine." Recalling the visual preference survey done in conjunction with the TransPlan update, Ms. Bettman said that it got to the heart of how density could be livable. She said that when the City Council discussed density, it backed away when the discussion concerned commercial development. If the City was going to require residents to densify, it needed to require other uses to densify as well. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to approve the fiscal year 2004 Planning Commission work program, including the fiscal year Historic Review Board work program. Ms. Levis suggested that the commission brainstorm responses to Mr. Meisner's question about the LUCU. She also asked that the council indicate if it wanted the commission to take on its recommended process objectives. Mr. Kelly determined that Ms. Taylor and Ms. Solomon would accept as a friendly amendment the addition of a phrase "and pursue the suggested process objectives." Ms. Bettman noted that the work program omitted mention of the Planning Commission role in the selection of the new Planning Director. Ms. Colbath noted that Mr. Coyle had indicated to the commission that the selection of a new director was his task and that for the commission to take a major role would be at odds with the City Manager form of government. The commission was awaiting to see if there were any opportunities that arose that members could take advantage of to provide input. Ms. Bettman asked what the City's policy was in regard to the issue, noting the Police Commission's input in the desired characteristics of a new police chief. City Manager Taylor indicated he would follow up with a memorandum. He said that there were legal MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 6 Work Session