Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the request. <br /> <br />Ms. Colbath opened the floor to questions from the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />In response to Mr. Carroll, Mr. Spickerman said there was nothing in the Oregon Administrative <br />Rules (OAR) that the applicant needed to prove up front that there would not be a significant <br />traffic effect. <br /> <br />Responding to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Spickerman said in his understanding with Ms. Jerome, the <br />aspirationallanguage in the DTP was intended to prevent some policies from being used as <br />criteria that could be used to deny developments that were not in accordance with the adopted <br />policies. It did not mean that the policies were not directional for future development. <br /> <br />Mr. Spickerman asked to have the record kept open. He agreed with Mr. Nystrom's suggestion to <br />conclude the City staff response and Planning Commission questions before establishing a date to <br />close the record. <br /> <br />Ms. Siegenthaler said the City of Eugene did a trip generation analysis related to the <br />redesignation of the federal courthouse site. She added that the analysis assumed a worst case <br />scenario. There was a count of potential trips generated by the proposed designation versus the <br />existing uses on the courthouse site. As part of that analysis, there was also a comparative <br />analysis in which staff looked at the potential number of employees versus the kinds of traffic <br />generated by the current uses. <br /> <br />Mr. Yeiter said the courthouse amendment was adopted by the City Council the same day as the <br />DTP, adding as the City Council was adopting the policy basis, they also reviewed a trip <br />generation compariso~ to approve the courthouse designation. <br /> <br />Ms. Siegenthaler said that a refinement plan amended the Metro Plan, and that refinement plans <br />often contained specific directives related to a specific parcel, which was not the case with the <br />issue currently before the commission. She added that staff's interpretation of the policy was that <br />it applied in a broad sense, and was a directive to the community to promote redesignation of <br />underutilized sites, rather than a mandate. The language was broad enough that it could apply to <br />a number of underutilized sites in the downtown area, including those that were used as surface <br />parking. Although there was policy support for a commercial designation; it was not parcel <br />specific. <br /> <br />Ms. Siegenthaler said a significant amount of data was not needed to meet the Goal 12 findings <br />requirement. Simple comparisons, using readily available formulas and methodologies, between <br />the, types of uses that would be allowed in a commercial designation versus the kinds of trips that <br />would be generated by high density residential us'es, co.uld be submitted in support of the <br />proposal. <br /> <br />Mr. Nystrom stated it was important for the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to support the <br />relevant criteria, and the level of analysis could vary from project to project. The issue was a <br />burden of proof question. <br /> <br />In response to Mr. Belcher, Ms. Siegenthaler affirmed that the City of Eugene completed the TIA <br />for the courthouse because the City was the applicant for the zone change. She added the affected <br />properties included a combination of city-owned and privately owned parcels. The TIA included <br />potential uses for the privately owned, industrial zoned sites, that consisted of an old cannery site. <br /> <br />MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission <br />Public Hearing <br /> <br />September 19,2006 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br />