Item A: Ordinance Amending Metro Plan and Willakenzie Area Plan (Huntington Crossing)

Home Browse Search

tion in question was approved. He reiterated that the proposal would put housing close to where people worked and would be along a major transit line. Mr~ Dignam asked if staff agreed with the applicant's reasoning. Ms. McKinney clarified that the change the designation itself did not cause inconsistency; the issue was whether changing this part of the Metro Plan would create a ripple effect in the Metro Plan itself that would create inconsistency, perhaps confl~cting with other Metro Plan policies. Mr. Nystrom pointed out if the City enabled people to request a change in designation, there would be some recognizable differences in designations. - He did not perceive the issue as the change itself, but rather whether the change created other inconsistencies that must be reconciled. He did not see any text inconsistencies. Ms. Arkin asked if the developer anticipated that the development would place pressure on the adjacent properties to become res.idential. Mr. Reed did not think so. He said that everything to the south and southwest was owned by The Register Guard and he did not think the company had plans for residential development. If The Register Guard proposed residential development, it would have to justify it in the same manner as the applicant. There were two long tax lots to the east owned by Northwest Natural Gas and the Eugene Water & Electric Board and he did not anticipate a change in their use. He said that a sliver of land to the east would be created when the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) widened 1-5 and built the off-ramp to Beltline. The properties to the north would be "islanded," which was why the company reached out to the Harmon family, the adjacent property owner. When those discussions began, there was no ODOT road project affecting the two properties. The family had no idea as to what it wanted to do with the property in the long-term, so the Ward family proceeded with its application alone. He did not think the Harmon property would remain industrial because of its small, odd size. In the long-term the property owner may seek a change to residential or commercial, which his client would not object to~ Ms. Arkin asked who would pay for the Chad Drive extension. Mr. Reed said the City would build the road but.he was not sure of all the funding mechanisms involved. He said that adjacent property owners would be assessed for a-portion of the road, and the applicant would pay a considerable- sum in systems development charges when the development occurred. Referringto the traffic impact analysis (TIA), Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki asked how an industrial park could generate more trips than a residential development. Mr. Reed attributed it to the wide range of uses allowed in industrial zones by the City and the fact that traffic used commercial developments more _ heavily during peak a.m. and p.m. hours. He said that the residential development would have more of a balance of trips and it was likely that some residents could take advantage of mass transit or other alternate modes to come and go from the site. Mr. Reed explained that the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual was used in the calculation and its figures were based on land usage and- square feet. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki pointed out an error in Table 2 on page 10 of the TIA. There being no other requests to speak, Mr. Duncan closed the public hearing. He called for the staff response to testimony. Ms. McKinney said that there were standards related to the calculations used in the TIA, and the TIA was referred to the City's Public Works Transportation staff, which confirmed the numbers were generally representative of the most reasonable development scenario. Mr. Nystrom concurred. H.e noted t~at peak flow hours were also measured by the applicant. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Siekiel- October 24; 2006 Page 4