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

Home Browse Search

Mr. Belcher asked if there was a linkage in the DTP between Policy 3 and the "opportunity areas" map previously distributed. Mr. Yeiter did not know if the Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) had looked at the development potential of specific downtown sites. He confirmed that the Motor Pool site was in mind when the policy in the Downtown Plan was established. Mr. Belcher was concerned that a Planning Commission decision that concurred with Mr. Spickerman's assertion could be used in future applications to claim that, the existing street system could accommodate new development. He found much of what Mr. Spickerman said regarding the purpose of the DTP to facilitate development was compelling. Mr. Yeiter said creation of a new diagram or inclusion of more specificity in the DTP and CATS update had originally been intended, but that did not ultimately happen due to lack of resources. Mr. Nystrom said there was an effort to solicit interest by private property owners in a larger area to do a broad zone change review by the City when the courthouse was under review. He added that a change in a Metro Plan designation would have to have been reconciled at the time if the intent was to meet the applicant's request. He added the DTP was not intended to make formal designation changes, which differed from typical refinement pl,ans. Ms. Colbath said Mr. Spickerman's case was compelling, particularly when he asked if a refinement plan held the weight of the Metro Plan. Ms. Colbath said he asserted that housekeeping changes had created a scenario where the Metro Plan had changed to meet the refinement plan. She asked what effect traffic patterns would have on the downtown area. Ms. Siegenthaler said the trip reduction measures in the downtown area could be factored into a comparison, but these policies and overlay zones, including the transit oriented overlay and nodal development zones, were aimed at reducing th~ number of automobile related trips. There was nothing in these overlay zones that established what current vehicle trips were for a given use, and to what degree those trips needed to be reduced. She said the overlay zones would be applied when specific development proposals were submitted. She stated that although there may be policies in CATS that addressed reduction of vehicle trips, the amount of traffic impacts relative to the current proposal needed to be identified to satisfy Goal 12. Mr. Nystrom stated that the required analysis m~y be a simple one that provided a defensible argument that addressed the street systems, their level of service, how they currently operate, and the net change to the system. At this point, the applicant had not submitted data upon which a decision could be made. Responding to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Nystrom said all goal findings needed to be addressed as in a refinement plan amendment. Mr. Yeiter explained the process, noting that adopted refinements plans and policies were used as the basis for the DTP process. Responding to a question regarding Mr. Spickerman's reference to the South Willamette subarea, he stated that the recommendation was to redesignate some properties to be consistent wjth the developed nature of the properties, that on Willamette Street the diagram did not match existing uses, so the change reflected existing higher density residential development. During periodic review housekeeping, a TIA was not completed, based on the assumption that any needed TIAs would be done with refinement plan adoption. MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission Public Hearing September 19,2006 Page 5