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

Home Browse Search

goals had been adequately addressed. He said the applicant claimed that the evidence was in the DTP, and while staff asserted there nothing in the DTP to rely on, and analysis was required. Mr. Yeiter distributed copies of Council Ordinance Number 20315, An ordinance amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram to add the ND symbol to the Eugene Downtown Plan area; redesignating the Federal Courthouse site from heavy industrial to commercial; adopting a severability clause; and providing an effective date; adopted on April 12, 2004. Exhibit B stated that the existing transportation facilities were adequate to serve the total new daily trips under a worst case scenario. Recalling the Knutson rezoning, Mr. Belcher said the commission looked at the potential uses on the site with rezoning and potential impacts of those uses, and not the worst case scenario. He asked if another TIA would be required at the applicant's site for a specific use. Mr. Nystrom said there were thresholds in code, which may not be reached by the types of projects on this site. Mr. Belcher expressed concern that a future development at another downtown site could generate a significant amount of traffic that would not require a TIA. Referring to Policy 3, he asked if the DTP intended that redesignation occur at the time the plan was adopted, or whether it could be. used to support a future rezoning. Mr. Nystrom agreed that it was intended to support future rezoning, and at that point in time Goal 12 would apply. Mr. Hledik viewed the question differently. There were a number of key points, including the statement from OAR 660-012-0062(2)(a)-(d): HThe Plan does not, by its adoption, allow types or levels of land uses which would resl.l-lt in inconsistencies with the functional classification of a transportationfacility, or reduce the performance standards of the facility." This statement was a finding acknowledged and adopted by the State Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). He asserted this pointed to underused and vacant sites that should be redesignated to C-2 or C-3, supporting the applicant's request for approval. Agreeing with Mr. Hledik, Mr. Lawless said there was sufficient support in the application, particularly the map of opportunity areas that provided compelling justification for approval. He understood the staff concern for sufficient evidence to tie all of the pieces together to meet Goal 12 requirements, which could be a simple solution. Mr. Carroll noted some findings in the staff report regarding Statewide Goal 13, Energy Conservation, which stated that Goal 13 did not apply. He wondered if it was accurate to state that certain goals did not apply or if it should be stated that the proposal was consistent with goals. Ms. Siegenthaler said that since there were no impacts to energy conservation anticipated with the proposed amendment, to state that "therefore it was consistent with Goal 13," would have been clearer. She added that staff would make the correction to the findings as suggested. Mr. Y eiter clarified that there had been discussion about how transportation should happen MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission Public Hearing September 19; 2006 Page 7