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

Home Browse Search

was concerned that if an applicant could not rely on an adopted and acknowledged plan, the City was not meeting the objective of the DTP to simplify and expedite development downtown. He stated that based on the DTP findings, further traffic analysis was not necessary, and the applicant could rely on the plan. He opined that this recommendation would not be appealed to Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), while discretion for other types of applications would remain intact. While agreeing that there was no traffic impact on the DTP, Mr. Belcher said the DTP did not change any zoning. Mr. Yeiter added that the DTP required EWEB to have a plan. Mr. Belcher added a precedent had been set with the courthouse site as an underutilized site, where the City of Eugene completed a TIA. Ms. Colbath expressed concern that City Attorney Jerome said the policies in the DTP were generally aspirational in nature. She noted staff asserted that all policies but those regarding EWEB were aspirational, which would require some type of analysis to meet the DTP requirements. Referring to the April 12, 2004 Eugene City Council Agenda Item Summary regarding the Downtown Plan Update and Related Metro Plan and Code Amendments, Mr. Hledik read "the policies in the Downtown Plan cannot be the basis for denial of public or private proposals regarding change in the downtown." He asserted the policies could not be used to deny the applicant's request or any others, but the policies did not preclude the Planning Commission from approving the request. Ms. Colbath closed the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION Mr. Lawless said in terms of the community wanting to grow up and not out,.the DTP acknowledged that the transportation analysis typically required in other areas, was not of the same weight outside <?f the downtown. He was leaning strongly towards setting aside further transportation analysis for any develops within the DTP area because of the acknowledgement that whatever happened downtown people were going to get around, and downtown was going to become denser and adapt to that. He added the DTP would not have been approved if that had not been desirable fot the downtown. Mr. Belcher said he disagreed with the concept that if all of the underutilized properties downtown were converted to commercial, the current transportation system would be adequate. He added the downtown area would eventually be successful, necessitating adaptation of the transportation system to meet that need. By setting a precedent, future developments would be able to develop without a TIA, which did not make sense to him. Mr. Lawless said as the uses intensified and the numbers grew, the system as currently calibrated would need to grow proportionately. He added part of the downtown vision was that the current 66 foot right-of-way would remain intact, and people would not be able to drive around. Ms. Colbath said if the right-of-way was constrained, the analysis indicated that more trips would be generated by commercial uses opposed to high density residential. She asked if no change in the functional street classification was intended to result from the plan, was the intent that no change would occur because the plan was aspirational or if there was agreement MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission Public Hearing September 19,2006 Page 9