Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation to the commission for its flexibility in accepting new <br />assignments. She reminded the commission of the Land Use Measures Task Force and the focus <br />on transit-oriented development, and stressed that frequent transit service was the mainstay of <br />nodal development. She said that the nodes must be served frequently with transit for nodal <br />success. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly also thanked the commission for its hard work and its willingness to be flexible. He <br />agreed about the importance of nodal development. He regretted that little progress had been <br />made on nodal implementation, although he recognized and acknowledged the challenges facing <br />the City in that task. He said the City had to make the progress of nodal development more <br />efficient and work to avoid lost opportunities for nodal development. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly was happy that the Land Use Code Update was complete but said that it would need to <br />be refined, and there was an extensive post-adoption work plan. He invited commission input on <br />that issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked if the Historic Review Board intended to attempt to preserve some of the buildings <br />on the Agripac site. Ms. Childs discussed the Section 106 Mitigation and noted that <br />documentation of the historic use of the site was envisioned in conjunction with that. Mr. Johnson <br />said that the federal government and City were discussing who would pay for that effort. Ms. <br />McMillan said that the Historic Review Board had a brief discussion of the nature of the buildings <br />on the Agripac site. Ms. Childs clarified that buildings were not in the area of interest to the <br />federal government, but were located in the context area. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly referred to page 23 of the meeting packet, which referred to the Historic Plaque <br />Program. He asked when plaques would be installed. Ms. McMillan did not know, saying that the <br />board would see final plans for the plaque designs in the fall, as well as suggestions on how to <br />pay for them. Mr. Kelly suggested that the plaques could be funded with public contributions, and <br />offered to make a donation. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr questioned whether the public understood the contribution made by the commission, <br />saying he truly appreciated the visionary work that the commission did. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey thanked the commission for its efforts. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs said the work program in the packet was developed before the council gave the <br />commission two more assignments, which would be added to the work program if it was approved <br />by the council. She noted that the additions would cause the remainder of the schedule to slip, <br />and suggested that staff update the council on that subject later in the year. She indicated staff <br />would also need to check in regarding the funding situation. Regarding the post-LUCU work <br />program, she reminded the council that the position proposed to assist in that effort was not <br />funded in the last budget, which would also affect the implementation of the work program. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to approve the FY02 Planning <br /> Commission work program, with the council's gratitude. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor acknowledged the time shifts created by the additions, but suggested that the additions <br />were of major importance. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 9, 2001 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />