Item 3: PH on Ordinance Regarding State Motor Pool Metro Plan Amendment and Zone Change

Home Browse Search

location of the proposed change can be served through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and services. (4) The proposed zone change was consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for th~ specific zone in (a) EC 9.2150 Commercial Zone Siting Requirements. . (5) In cases where the NR zone was applied based on EC 9.2510(3), the property owner shall enter into a contractual arrangement with the City to ensure the area was maintained . as a natural resource area for a minimum of 50 years. Recommendation Based on the available information and materials in.the record, and the staff findings provided, staff cannot recommend approval of the Metro Plan amendment or zone change, as there was not sufficient information in the record to find that the proposal complied with EC 9.7730(3)(a), specifically with regard to Statewide Planning Goal 12 as implemented through OAR 660-0012- 0060. REPORT OF SITE VISITS In responseto Ms. Colbath, Commissioners Hledik and Belcher indicated they had visited the site. CALL FOR TESTIMONY Ms. Colbath introduced James Spickerman, the applicant's representative. Mr. Spickerman, 975 Oak Street, Gleaves, Swearingen, Potter & Scott, Law Firm, stated he represented the State (State) of Oregon in the application being considered. He said he had advised the State that it was not necessary to prepare a traffic impact analysis, based upon his involvement in the development ofthe.Downtown Plan, and his understanding that the document was supposed to be a working plan. Mr. Spickerman said unlike other neighborhood refinement plans, the Eugene Downtown Plan (DTP) had no diagrams, leaving only policy to discuss. He said the DTP contained implementation strategies that provided possible ways to accomplish the goals of the plan. He added when the DTP was adopted the policy was adopted and acknowledged to be consistent with the Metro Plan and statewide goals. Mr. Spickerman distributed copies of Eugene Code 9.9640 (South Willamette SubArea Study Policies) and the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Plan Diagram. Mr. Spickerman, referring to his September 15, 2006 letter to the Planning Commission, asserted the applicant did not believe that a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) was necessary due to the clear policy direction of the DTP for redesignation and rezoning of the site. He said it did not make sense to him that a TIA was not necessary for plan adoption, but was needed to modify a . plan. Mr. Spickerman stated City Attorney Emily Jerome had suggested that he make additional findings related to Goal 12, and a TIA may not be required. He understood one purpose of the DTP was to facilitate development in the downtown area. Ms. Colbath ascertained there was no one wishing to speak as a neutral party or in opposition to MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission Public Hearing September 19,2006 Page 3