CC Minutes - 06/22/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. McMillan said that it was "delightful" for the commission to finish its role in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan amendments process, and the entire commission had been pleased by the council's adoption of the Growth Management Study policies, which would help guide the commission in its review of the Land Use Code Update. Ms. McMillan thanked the council for adopting the site review overlay district at the Westec site. Ms. McMillan said she looked forward to the commission's review of Land Use Code Update, and noted her long-time interest in developing design standards. As a member of the Historic Review Board, she looked forward to the establishment of two new historic districts by the end of 1998. Ms. Nathanson asked the commissioners if there had been a work program item they were assigned that they considered inappropriate or would have preferred not to have done, and if there had been a work program item they would have liked to have accomplished. In response to the first part of Ms. Nathanson's question, Mr. Van Landingham said that there had been no such items in the last year, but he reminded the council of the "stop gap" measures it had developed prior to the inception of the Growth Management Study. He said that while the commission learned a great deal through that process, it had delayed the Growth Management Study for at least one year, which he found frustrating. In response to the second part of the question, Mr. Van Landingham said he would like an opportunity for the Planning Commision to play a role regarding the urban levels of development outside the city limits. He anticipated further subdivision development in the rural area, and said that the commission did not currently have the power to engage in a dialogue about the issue with the County. In response to Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Farley concurred with Mr. Van Landingham's latter remarks, noting the recent development proposal off Dillard Road approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and adding that the City not asked in a formal way to provide comment on the rezoning proposal in spite of its impact on Eugene. He said that the result of the proposal would essentially be five-acre home sites directly south of the city. Mr. Farley believed that such development should be carefully tracked. Also in response to Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Wojahn said that the Capital Improvement Program was a "stretch" for the commission because of the financial and political nature of the document. She said that it was difficult for the commission to make a difference in the process, and it did not really know where to start. Ms. Wojahn said that the commission had to be "brought up to speed" on urban renewal and it appreciated the opportunity to share its thoughts with the council even though the council chose a different approach than that recommended by the commission. Ms. Taylor noted her concerns about the Dillard Road development. She thought it unfortunate that the City was not notified about the proposal or invited to comment. What comment staff had offered she termed unfortunate. Ms. Taylor said she considered the Costco parking lot expansion proposal a violation of the council's recently adopted Growth Management Study policies. Ms. Swanson Gribskov thanked the commission for its support to her personally and to the community in general. Mr. Meisner recalled that the council, on adoption of the 19 Growth Management Study policies, agreed that the policies were not guidelines or criteria governing any specific land use decision. However, by virtue of the extensive public input into the study, the council created enormous MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1998 Page 2 6p.m.