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

Home Browse Search

that there would be no functional change in the streets because the current streets would support future uses. Mr. Nystrom stated staff felt there was a gap with what was analyzed in the application. It was important to provide data to support a conclusion for Goal 12. In response to Ms. Colbath and Mr. Belcher, Mr. Yeiter stated the redesignation of courthouse site did not cause the new street to be built. He understood the existing streets could have accommodated commercial uses at the sites, but there was a desire to provide a safe pedestrian crossing. Following a brief discussion, there was consensus to take a straw poll on two issues: · Recommend revising the findings to state that the proposal is consistent with the Statewide Goal 13; straw vote passed unanimously, 5:0. · Recommend amending the findings to support approval of both the plan amendment and the zone change consistent with Goal 12, with the findings and information in the' September 15, 2006 letter from Mr. Spickerman; straw vote defeated, 2:3, with Commissioners Belcher, Carroll and Colbath in opposition. In response to Mr. Belcher, ,Mr. Nystrom confirmed that Mr. Duncan would be able to participate in further deliberation and vote if he reviewed the record of tonight's meeting. In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Yeiter said a motion with a tie on a formal vote. would fail to pass. Mr. Nystrom noted the vote would be forwarded to the City Council without a recommendation., Mr. Yeiter solicited further direction from the commissioners who voted in opposition to the second straw poll. Mr. Carroll offered the following comments: . Focus on transportation planning rule analysis in the DTP. . Using DTP plan as a basis for denial did not pertain because it discussed, the merits and content of the plan. . Need for analysis of downtown related transportation issues. . Need more information to be able to comply with the State goals; how can the City of Eugene work with the applicant to ensure compliance. . This would serve as a test case for future downtown zonings. . No substantial analysis was made at the time the plan was.adopted; the plan was consistent because it did not do anything; the analysis needed to occur at some point. Mr. Belcher said the issue was not the degree of analysis required, but rather analysis needed to take place to support the zone change request. Ms. Colbath opined the level of analysis needed was not a TIA, but could be a low level of analysis. She did not want the commission to be an impediment to good things happening downtown. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Spickerman asked to have the record remain open for a couple of weeks. MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission Public Hearing September 19,2006 Page 10