Item 1: Ordinance on Oregon West Management

Home Browse Search

He opined there were two choices: Either the applicant cold move forward with the existing PUD with some unidentified traffic impact at the end of the planning period; or, if the Planning Commission recommended approval based on the reduced t1'aftic cap, i.e., ifthe traffic impact was reduced today, it would carry forward to reducing a tramc impact in the future. Page 7, paragraph 4, Mr. McCown offered the following correction: Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval ofthe applications based on: 1) as Exhibit A to the September 17,2007, Agenda Item Sunimary, except for the Goal 12 findings on pages 4-6 of Exhibit A; 2) the alternate Goal 12 findings attached as Exhibit A.l to the September 17,2007 Agenda Item Summary; 3) conditions of approval imposing a Floor Area Ratio of .70 and a trip cap of 213 PM peak hour trips for any future uses on the site; and, 4) with changes to staff findings on page 1-24, paragraph 2, sentence 4: Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude the net effect of the proposed plan amendment and zone change with the trip cap will result in_an overall reduction in the total number of trips on the surrounding transportation facilities thus, with the trip cap, the allowed land uses would be consistent with the identified function, capacity and performance standards of the impacted transportation facilities. Mr. Belcher offered a friendly amendment, to add the following: Additionally the findings would reflect the date of the TIA that was completed. Following a brief discussion, Mr. McCown withdrew his second. Mr. Carroll further moved: 5) with changes to staff findings on page 1-23, paragraph 4, first sentence to reference the specific date of the original TIA applying to the subject property. Mr. McCown seconded the motion. The motion passed 4:1, with Mr. Belcher voting in opposition. Page 5, paragraph 3, Ms. Kneeland offered the following correction: Ms. Kneeland acknowledged there was a need to reconcile how to measure traffic impacts to 2015, the end of the planning period, but she questioned how the Planning Commission felt about getting there by accepting the evidence before the commission as opposed to asking for an extensive report. Mr. Dun<;an noted although Jon Bekher had been a member of the Planning Commission and in attendance at the meetings for which the minutes were approved, he was no longer a member of the Commission. MINUTES---Eugcnc Plalming Commission November 5, 2007 Page 2