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

Home Browse Search

Mr. Nystrom added that housekeeping measures attempted to maintain consistency between adopted plans. The intent was not to open up the discussion to new policies or new designations. Mr. Hledik asked the following questions: · Based on the findings, goals, objectives, policies, implementation strategies, and other text, what was the intent of the twelve opportunity areas. · Was there a specific intent for opportunity area number three as stated in the DTP. · Referring to page 3 of Mr. Spickerman's September 15 letter, referring to OAR 660-012- 0060(2)(a)-(d), was there any issue that the findings were stated correctly. o Mr. Yeiter responded that the quote, from ordinance number 20316, ~as accurate. · Was there a finding in the Downtown Plan adoption related to Section (1) of the transportation rule.ofthe DTP. o Ms. Siegenthaler said the intent in the findings was to address {I), which was the case with this application. · There must have been some level of analysis completed during the DTP review process to conclude that, "the proposed refinement plan adoption. is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12. " o Mr. Yeiter stated the DTP did not create a diagram, nor amend the Metro Plan diagram, and CATS for the downtown area did not change the functional classification of any streets, therefore Goal 12 was not affected. . Did construction of the Third Avenue/Fourth Avenue connector take into account the DTP and the anticipated development that was prescribed to occur by the DTP. Mr. Belcher.asked if the Third Avenue/Fourth Avenue connector construction changed the capacity of the street. Mr. Yeiter said the street classification did not change. The planned connector improvements predated the DTP. He added the general intent for the identified opportunity areas was to encourage better and higher uses of the sites that were seen as underutilized,. One purpose of the map was to encourage private investment on the identified sites. Mr. Yeiter said there had been considerable discussion on the part of the City Council regarding city participation in helping fund private dev~lopment, and the role of downtown as everyone's neighborhood. The DTP reflected multiple purposes. In response to Mr. Lawless, Mr. Yeiter said the courthouse district and ancillary properties had been redesignated from heavy industrial to commercial in the Metro Plan, but had not yet been rezoned. Mr. Lawless asked if there were other similar sites in downtown that currently had a Metro Plan designation other than commercial. Mr. Nystrom said Eugene Water and Electric Board and several others near the courthouse that fit the criteria. Mr. Lawless asked how the Planning Commission would analyze a proposal with so many potential combinations of mixed use, nodal development, and high density residential components. Mr. Nystrom said there needed to be sufficient evidence to show that all of the Statewide MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission Public Hearing September 19,2006 Page 6