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

Home Browse Search

downtown, and Goal 12 could not have been dismissed by simply saying it did not apply. In response to Mr. Carroll, Ms. Siegenthaler said Planning staffrel~ed upon Public Works staff for technical information regarding traffic impacts. She added the applicant had not proposed any traffic information to evaluate against Goal 12 requirements. Mr. Belcher claimed that the Transit Oriented Development (TaD) was irrelevant in this situation. Referring to Policy 3, he said there was nothing that tied the policy to the map. He feared that sometime in the future, a developer would claim a TIAwas not required, regardless of how intensive the use would be. Mr. Nystrom said staff would look to the applicant to propose something for analysi~. He stated that the policies that were aspirational were intended to provide guidance for future downtown commercial developments, but there was a process that needed to be followed in order to implement those policies. Mr. Belcher said Policy 3 provided support for the zone change, but did not eliminate the Metro Plan process. He expressed concern that if the Planning Commission decided the applicant's request was a de facto zone change, future applicants could claim the downtown area was underutilized, thus setting a precedent that would eliminate the need to meet the Metro Plan and state land use goals. Mr. Hledik said parking lots were specifically called out in the DTP, and a future Planning Commission could use discretion in making a decision regarding underutilized properties. Ms. Colbath asked if the intent of the DTP was aspirational, but refinement plans directed the Metro Plan, what "part of the DTP was not aspirational. Mr. Yeiter said the ND overlay designation in the Metro Plan was adopted in conjunction the courthouse work. The ND overlay identified the courthouse area as a pedestrian friendly, transit oriented area that would allow an automatic ten percent reduction in traffic generation numbers, and generate some Systems Development Charge (SDC) credits. Mr. Nystrom stated"at the time the DTP was adopted, there were. discussions about the policies being directive in nature, and whether some policies should have stronger weight. At that time, only the EWEB policies reached that threshold, ultimately becoming part of the city development code. He concurred with Ms. Colbath that the DTP was different from other refinement plans, in that it did not have a diagram,. He stated making this a less prescriptive and more aspirational document that provided a vision for downtown was a conscious decision on the part of the City Council. Mr. Belcher reiterated that the applicant had admitted that the requirement for a TIA was not onerous, so the real question was: What does Policy 3 say, what was the required level of analysis for the requested zone change. He said setting a precedent that analysis was not required for a zone change would be very dangerous. He would vote that some transportation analysis was needed. Mr. Hledik opined the focus was not on Policy 3, but rather on the transportation planning administrative rule. He asserted the DTP concluded that the plan was consistent with Goal 12 and none of the land uses proposed by the DTP would diminish the functional capacity or the performance of the streets. Furthermore, the DTP had been acknowledged by DLCD. He MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission Public Hearing September 19, 2006 Page 8