Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue January 26, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Charles Rusch, President, John Lawless, Vice President, Jon Belcher, Mitzi Colbath, Rick Duncan, Adell McMillan, members; Tom Coyle, ex officio member; Susan Muir, Allen Lowe, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Stefano Viggiano, Graham Carey, Lane Transit District; Charles Biggs, guest. ABSENT: Anne Marie Levis, member. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS COBURG ROAD COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Subcommittee Reports B. Other Items from the Commission and Staff SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue January 26, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Charles Rusch, President, John Lawless, Vice President, Jon Belcher, Mitzi Colbath, Rick Duncan, Adell McMillan, members; Tom Coyle, ex officio member; Susan Muir, Allen Lowe, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Stefano Viggiano, Graham Carey, Lane Transit District; Charles Biggs, guest. ABSENT: Anne Marie Levis, member. Mr. Rusch called the meeting to order. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eugene, addressed the commission on the subject of transportation studies. He stressed how important it was that studies truly reflect the views of citizens affected by them and urged that they remain active documents and not be placed on a shelf and forgotten. He stated that his major concern regarding transportation studies was public involvement, which should be described in detail, including controversy and resolution, and well documented in the study. COBURG ROAD COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Mr. Lowe introduced Graham Carey of Lane Transit District (LTD), who would present the Coburg Road Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Corridor Study. Mr. Carey said his presentation would address five areas related to the study: background of the study, the process, issues that were raised, input received, next steps and how to proceed. He asked Mr. Lawless, as the Planning Commission’s representative, to share his insight into the study. Mr. Carey stated that the Franklin Boulevard BRT corridor was approved by the City Council in May 2001 and at that time LTD was directed to proceed to identify the next corridor. He said that an initial list of seven possible corridors, consistent with TransPlan, was reduced to two, Coburg Road and Highway 99, for final consideration. He said that eventually Coburg Road was selected as the next corridor, approved by the City Council in February 2002, and the LTD Board concurred with that decision. Mr. Carey indicated that experience gained during the public process on the first BRT corridor directed the Coburg Road corridor process. He said that first a master vision of the corridor was created and then how BRT would fit into the corridor was addressed. He stated that a 17-member stakeholder group with broad representation was established, met monthly over a period of 11 months, and approached its task by dividing the corridor into seven sections. He said that each section was evaluated separately, including MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 1 existing conditions, existing plans related to the corridor, and future issues and plans that could affect those conditions. Continuing, Mr. Carey said that two main goals for the corridor emerged. He related that the first goal was to preserve the retail area, particularly since retail activity along Coburg Road was highly successful; the second goal was to preserve the neighborhood characteristics of the corridor. He said an analytical process followed that rated important attributes of the corridor, such as traffic flow, parking, access, landscape, and pedestrian issues in each of the seven sections. He said the group also looked at other alignments, such as Oakway Road. The group also looked at the potential for a route that would pass through Alton Baker Park and across the Autzen Footbridge. Mr. Carey said it was evident during development of the study that a conflict existed between the City’s policies in the Arterial/Collector Street Plan and how the corridor was actually operating. He said the plan classified Coburg Road as a major arterial and there were tradeoffs in movement along the corridor and its capacity against access requirements. He said that access, particularly in the Oakway area, was critical to commercial development, but inconsistent with the higher movement and capacity associated with an arterial. He said there was some sense among the group that BRT might not benefit the corridor because of right-of-way requirements and impacts on access. In conclusion, Mr. Carey said that future direction would be affected by funding and LTD had requested, under the next transportation bill that extended to 2009, construction funds for the Pioneer Parkway corridor and planning funds for the Coburg Road corridor. He said that Coburg Road corridor construction funds would be requested in the subsequent transportation bill starting in 2009, which provided a six-year buffer before any construction and would allow time for the City to complete an access management plan that focused on Coburg Road. Mr. Lawless declared that Mr. Carey’s overview of the process was very fair. He said he would offer more information on some of the recurring themes and subject matter that lead to finalization of the study as the commission commenced its discussion. Ms. Colbath asked if the Autzen Footbridge alignment was part of the Oakway Road or Coburg Road corridor. Mr. Carey replied that it was seen as an alternative to both of those corridors and the impetus was a desire to bypass the Oakway area because of the competition for space, but ultimately looking at an Autzen alignment was not the purpose of the group. Mr. Belcher said that access management was also an issue in other locations in the City and asked staff how BRT would be a part of that process. Mr. Lowe replied that access management was initially proposed, by Public Works, as an administration rule process, but that discussions with the Planning Commission led staff to commit to a more public process in which LTD would be invited to participate. He said an access management study was tentatively scheduled to begin in 2005. Mr. Lawless said the issue of access management was hotly debated by the stakeholder group and there were strong feelings about preserving left turns along Coburg Road, although there was some realization that inevitably something would have to change. He indicated retailers and property owners were unwilling to consider BRT options that would restrict access and hence the discussions about whether BRT was an appropriate mode on a segment of road that relied so heavily on access. He commented that increasing traffic volumes would present a similar dilemma and there was not yet resolution to the contentious issue of access. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 2 Mr. Rusch remarked that he had attended some of the stakeholder group meetings. He commented that it was time for “out-of-the-box” thinking and a look at BRT in a different way. He acknowledged that LTD was reluctant to make claims about the extent to which BRT would reduce the traffic load, but felt that BRT should be viewed as a new system that could be responsible for much of the arterial traffic load. He suggested that BRT in the center of the road could take care of arterial traffic, with the rest of the road downgraded to major collector status to address the access concerns, and this could be done in a phased-in approach. He expressed support for Alternative Coburg-5 in the study, which he felt provided the best growth options. Mr. Lowe clarified that the Arterial/Collector Street Plan did anticipate BRT before TransPlan was adopted and one of the driving forces was to create multi-modal street designs for major streets that would fully accommodate transit, as well as bikes and pedestrians. Mr. Carey agreed that LTD did not consider what the modal change from automobile to BRT would be, primarily because a conservative approach that did not include assumptions about traffic impact was preferred, although that approach could change with experience once the first corridor is operational. Mr. Belcher said that access management would be an issue on Coburg Road whether or not BRT was present and he felt that LTD had perhaps been too accommodating in its effort to avoid impacts, leaving little incentive to use BRT if it was in mixed used with other traffic and the advantage of using it was not clear. Referring to multi-modal street design, Ms. Colbath said her concern was with easements and asked what type of easements were available for BRT through the Coburg Road corridor. Mr. Lowe replied that easements were not an issue with respect to the Arterial/Collector Street Plan. He said there was a described ideal right-of-way width for all street classifications and, because a community-wide BRT design process had not occurred when the plan was developed, the rights-of-ways did not accommodate additional right-of-way needs that might arise in the BRT planning process. Mr. Lawless commented that insufficiency of the current Coburg Road right-of-way presented another difficulty, compounded by land use requirements to build to property lines that did not take into account future potential setback and right-of-way width issues. He said the longer the BRT planning process lasted and redevelopment continued along the corridor, the more difficult it would be to integrate the transit system. Mr. Duncan asked if pushing back the timeframe for the Coburg Road corridor would provide an opportunity to again study the possibility of a Highway 99 corridor, which seemed to present fewer challenges with right-of-way width and access. He added that BRT could also be a catalyst to redevelop commercial areas, particularly those that were under-utilized. Mr. Carey responded that the City Council and LTD Board were meeting jointly on February 23, 2004, to discuss Coburg Road and other projects, including how to proceed given the time period before Coburg Road construction would begin. He commented that BRT could be considered as a catalyst and redevelopment tool; however, the cost of serving an area until redevelopment occurred was a major factor in LTD’s consideration of such a proposal. Mr. Duncan said it appeared that the Highway 99 corridor already had a large population base and there was a strong interest in the inexpensive and under-utilized land in the area, both of which could help support BRT. Mr. Lowe responded that the Coburg Road study made clear from the beginning that it did MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 3 not include land use changes. He said that Highway 99 would likely involve land use changes and therefore should be a joint City of Eugene and LTD planning initiative to address appropriate land uses and to consider urban renewal and financing tools that currently weren’t applied to the area. Mr. Viggiano added that the LTD Board’s position was to allow cities to identify their next corridors and the City had selected Coburg Road; it would be up to the City to change that direction and comments from the Planning Commission about alternative corridors could be forwarded to the council for consideration. Mr. Belcher commented that one of the Highway 99 issues was “how to get there from here.” He agreed that access management needed to be addressed and did not want to see the Coburg Road corridor abandoned, but if the opportunity arose he encouraged a study of Highway 99. He asked if Coburg Road had an increased right-of-way through a setback process such as existed on 18th Avenue. Mr. Lowe said that he thought the increased right-of-way through setback map did include Coburg Road, but wasn’t certain how that was addressed in individual land use decisions. Ms. McMillan observed that new development on Coburg Road was up to the sidewalk. Mr. Lowe said typically the map was used in the past to deal with additional right-of-way associated with identified City projects, such as a project in the Capital Improvement Program or TransPlan; however, there was no plan as yet for BRT so land use approvals could not include a condition requiring additional setbacks for a project not identified. Ms. Colbath asked staff to provide the commission with information on the setback status along Coburg Road. Mr. Lawless said the stakeholder group’s discussions had addressed whether the Coburg Road corridor was “selected” and could not be changed or whether it was identified and would be studied before decisions were made. He said it should be clarified that no final decision on a corridor had been made. He characterized the fundamental operational goal of BRT as addressing major metropolitan movement and commuter issues and when it was superimposed over the commercial segments of Coburg Road it did not function that way, but rather functioned as local service with a BRT-type vehicle. He said the group questioned whether locating BRT on Coburg Road with six stops close together made sense for the pure concept of BRT. He said the issue of connectivity for the system was a factor in the identification of a Coburg Road corridor, but many questioned remained to be answered. Ms. Colbath asked if there was been discussion about eliminating some of the Coburg Road stops. Mr. Carey said the group had discussed that possibility. Mr. Lawless noted that all of the options discussed were concerned with preserving access while providing some higher level of efficiency in vehicle movement within the larger system. Ms. Colbath observed that with nodal development, overlays were in place to prevent development that would conflict with that concept and asked if there was a similar approach that could be taken along Coburg Road that would preserve BRT opportunities long-term, given the lengthy time period before construction. Mr. Carey replied that other communities had protected corridors with a transit overlay. Mr. Lowe responded that because of concerns with the interface of transit at commercial concentrations and conflicts with the City’s current setback requirements, an overlay would be prudent, regardless of which BRT option was eventually chosen for the corridor. Mr. Duncan cautioned that an overlay should not be considered without strong direction from the council. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 4 Mr. Belcher suggested that there was sufficient time to look at how the corridor should develop and sometimes it took more than one attempt to address concerns and accommodate people’s needs. Mr. Lawless said the group identified, but did not explore in depth, the issue of whether Coburg Road was the best choice for a BRT corridor. He said there was a need for better defined goals for BRT, including its impact on the system and future aspirations. Mr. Lowe said during the process questions arose about finding alternative routes that currently did not exist. He said that the Willakenzie planning process included an exploration of alternative north-south arterial routes based on traffic projections of congestion on Coburg Road. He said that the plan identified an alternate route adjacent to the I-5, but whether the land could be acquired and at what cost were major factors. He added that there was limited connectivity in the street system in that area, which further complicated the matter. Mr. Belcher commented that identifying an alternative route would need to include planning for transportation and land use simultaneously. Mr. Duncan asked if BRT was intended to be point A to point B traffic or if multiple stops were contemplated. Mr. Carey replied that it was a combination of the two on some parts of the road, with stations somewhat further apart. He said that LTD viewed BRT as a means of improving existing service by replacing it with a more efficient BRT service that would save money. Ms. McMillan suggested that nodal development and overlay zones should consider ways to facilitate transit. Mr. Belcher suggested a generic node/BRT interface. Ms. McMillan asked if the number of stops and distances between them had been compared for the Franklin Boulevard and Coburg Road corridors. Mr. Carey said that was not included in the study because the Coburg Road stops had not been designed, although he thought the spacing would be similar. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Carey said it was unlikely that stops would be added as the population increased because that would compromise travel time. Mr. Yeiter said the Franklin Boulevard corridor design tried to anticipate were redevelopment was likely to occur for purposes of locating stations. Ms. Colbath said she was uncertain what action the commission should take on the study and agreed with Ms. McMillan’s suggestion to study ways to anticipate and accommodate transit. Mr. Carey said LTD viewed the study as the basis for planning activities when the decision was made to move forward with the corridor. Mr. Belcher encouraged LTD to continue to capture the issues and disagreements surrounding BRT. Mr. Rusch expressed discomfort with forwarding the document to the City Council without any input from the commission. Mr. Lawless said he felt the document, together with the minutes of the commission’s discussion, captured the controversy about BRT. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 5 Mr. Belcher said his interest was in the upcoming access management study. OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF Ms. Muir distributed copies of a January 7, 2004, letter from McKenzie-Willamette Hospital stating that the proposed 2nd Avenue and Chambers Street site did not meet their needs and would not be considered. Regarding the 2nd Avenue and Chambers Street site, Mr. Belcher reported that the Jefferson Westside Neighbors and Whiteaker Community Council supported the site and the Far West Neighbors had tabled the issue. Ms. Colbath, Mr. Lawless, Mr. Belcher, and Mr. Duncan reported on their recent participation in a charette that considered downtown area zones and civic center activities. They listed a number of concepts that were developed by various teams: • Location of a new police station • Future use of City Hall as a civic center • Integrating the federal courthouse area with downtown – road realignment or overpass • Adding floors to the north side of City Hall • 8th Avenue as a great street • Converting the south half of the “butterfly” parking lot to a park block Mr. Yeiter said the City had contracted with a consultant to take the charette results and focus them in a report. Mr. Rusch gave a slide presentation of the BRT system in Curitiba, Brazil to help illustrate the origins of BRT. He said that Curitiba had grown from a size less than Eugene to larger than Portland in about 20 years and transportation was at the heart of providing access to housing and employment for a greatly expanded population. He said that a local architect and mayor, Jaime Lerner, had spearheaded a move to use BRT to solve the city’s transportation problems. He demonstrated the design of vehicles, stations, and loading techniques that made the system efficient, accessible, and affordable. Ms. Muir distributed the Planning Division work program for discussion. She stated that a list of almost 60 tasks was reviewed and staff had identified and recommended to the council five areas that should be the focus for the remainder of FY 04 and FY 05: 1. Nodal development 2. Minor amendments to the Land Use Code 3. Downtown and Courthouse associated projects 4. Goal 5 (Natural Resources) associated projects 5. Emerging issues: a. River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project b. Buildable lands supply issue c. Service provision/special districts issue d. Economic development/hospital and other major projects e. Civic center Ms. Muir explained that the prioritization and recommendation was based on funding, mandated tasks, MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 6 and implementation of existing plans. She said the council had requested additional information on nodal develop and minor amendments to the code. She said the council had indicated that funding for nodal development was intended to support site-specific work. She anticipated further discussions with the council on the subject at its February 9, 2004, work session. Mr. Duncan suggested that the commission should discuss the direction of nodal development. Ms. Muir agreed it would be helpful to obtain the commission’s perspective. She said the issue for staff was whether the council wanted funding limited to site-specific activities or would allow it to be used for general nodal development planning. Mr. Yeiter added that the council had cited the Royal Node and Chambers Node as examples of the site-specific studies in which they were interested. Mr. Lawless asked if the commission and staff would have to work on nodal definitions and goals parallel to site-specific work. Ms. Muir said staff was formulating a response and requesting clarification from the council on that question. Mr. Belcher asked if a member of the Planning Commission should attend the February 9, 2004 council work session to represent the commission’s perspective on nodal development. Mr. Coyle responded that a letter to the council from the commission would be helpful. He said he did not think that site-specific was the right solution in the current context because designing a node absent development and community interests was not productive. Mr. Duncan said the council may have misconstrued the commission’s and staff’s intent regarding nodal development when the funding was initially provided. He said that it was important to fully design the concept of nodal development before pursuing site-specific planning. The commission discussed the difficulty in implementing site-specific planning before the major issues related to nodal development had been resolved. Mr. Belcher said if the City’s intent was to be able to respond to a developer, there should be some sort of structure around the nodal development process. Mr. Lawless agreed that there should be a nodal development guidelines package available to developers to provide a framework for redevelopment. Mr. Coyle stated that he and Ms. Muir would draft a memorandum from the commission to accompany the minutes and represent the commission’s position on nodal development. Mr. Belcher observed that some of the commission’s recommendations regarding the Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) were not included in the staff’s presentation, specifically the recommendation prohibiting northbound left turns during rush hours in 18th Avenue. Mr. Lowe said he would check into the matter. Mr. Belcher said another CATS issue related to the impact on parking for the Meridian Building. He said the commission was told that the business owners in the building had no objections to 18th Avenue changes, but the council agenda packet contained a letter from one of the building occupants expressing concern over the impact on parking. Ms. Colbath commented that the commission’s initial approval was in part based on lack of objections from the Meridian Building. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 7 Mr. Belcher felt it was important that the council understand that the commission made recommendations based on different information. Ms. Muir said she would investigate the concerns raised by Mr. Belcher. Mr. Lawless reported that the Downtown Eugene, Inc. downtown awards committee had met for the first time and would be developing award categories to recognize positive achievements in the redevelopment of downtown. Ms. Muir said the commission’s February 9, 2004, agenda included design review brainstorming and suggested that the subject of nodal development be added, based on the earlier discussion. Mr. Duncan reported that there was a joint initiative underway with Lane County and the cities of Eugene, Springfield, Junction City, Veneta, Creswell, and possibly others to review buildable lands on a regional basis. Ms. Colbath asked if abolishment of the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) meant the commission was now responsible for CIC land use issues. Ms. Muir replied the commission would now function as the CIC for any land use-related items. Mr. Rusch announced that he had attended a presentation by Dan Burden, a walkable cities advocate who specialized in photographing examples of good infill and smart growth projects across the country. He said a CD would be available in April. Mr. Lawless said Mr. Burden’s organization would be visiting Eugene in May 2004. Mr. Rusch adjourned the meeting at 1:35 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) m:\2004\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc040126.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 8