Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue February 23, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Charles Rusch, President; John Lawless, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Mitzi Colbath, Rick Duncan, Anne Marie Levis, Adell McMillan, members; Susan Muir, Allan Lowe Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department. Charles Biggs, Francina Verrijt, Bruce Wild, William Starling, Virginia Starling, Sherie Hawley, Frank Calciano, Elizabeth Lorish, Fred Lorish, Martin Brown, Monika Kluth, Lauri Segel, Paul Thompson, guests. ABSENT: Tom Coyle, ex officio member. I. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Levis, moved, seconded by Mr. Belcher to approve the minutes of November 10, November 17, December 1, December 8, and December 15, 2003; and Janu- ary 5, and January 12, 2004, as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. III. ARTERIAL COLLECTOR STREET PLAN AMENDMENTS Ms. McMillan, moved, seconded by Ms. Levis to recommend that the Council approve the addition of Figure 51 a, a new Example of Neighborhood Collector Utilizing Context Sensitive Design Standards as modified today. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Ms. McMillan, moved, seconded by Ms. Levis to recommend that the Council approve the addition of Context Sensitive Design Standards in the Design Stan- dards and Guidelines for Eugene Street, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways in Exhibit A of the ACSP as modified today. Mr. Lawless offered a friendly amendment, adding the language “as their design- ing principle”. Ms. McMillan and Ms. Levis accepted Mr. Lawless’ friendly amendment. The motion, as amended, passed unanimously, 6:0. Ms. Levis moved, seconded by Mr. Duncan to recommend that the Council ap- prove the adoption of the revised Figure 60, Street Classification Map in the Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan as modified today. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 1 IV. OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 2  MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue February 23, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Charles Rusch, President; John Lawless, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Mitzi Colbath, Rick Duncan, Anne Marie Levis, Adell McMillan, members; Susan Muir, Allan Lowe Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department. Charles Biggs, Francina Verrijt, Bruce Wild, William Starling, Virginia Starling, Sherie Hawley, Frank Calciano, Elizabeth Lorish, Fred Lorish, Martin Brown, Monika Kluth, Lauri Segel, Paul Thompson, guests. ABSENT: Tom Coyle, ex officio member. Mr. Rusch called the meeting to order. I. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There was no one wishing to speak II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 10: There were no corrections. November 17: Mr. Belcher corrected the first sentence in paragraph 8 on page 5 to read, “Mr. Belcher said his interpreta- tion of the current plan was that the University and the neighborhood would work together to revise the plan and that could include agreement to remove neighborhood representation.” Mr. Lawless corrected paragraph 10 on page 4 to read, “Mr. Lawless, citing a conflict of interest because of potential commission with the University system, recused himself from the item.” December 1 Mr. Lawless corrected the third sentence in paragraph 3 on page 4 to read: “He noted that in his opinion there were many architectural professionals that should not be included in any design phases of a project.” Mr. Lawless corrected the first sentence in paragraph 9, page 5 to read: “Mr. Lawless said downtown MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 1 could benefit from a site repair approach to infill.” Mr. Lawless corrected the second sentence in paragraph 14 on page 5 to read: “He said many renters in his opinion wanted stable neighborhoods as much as owners.” December 8 Ms. Levis noted that she was present for the December 8 meeting. Both Ms. Colbath and Ms. McMillan noted that they were absent for the December 8 meeting. December 15 Mr. Rusch noted there was no footer on the Summary Minutes. January 5 There were no corrections. January 12 Ms. Colbath changed the first sentence in paragraph 3, page 6 to read: “Ms. Colbath understood the idea of strong property tax growth after the agency expired, but noted this was the second time the plan was being renewed and extended the time the properties would be off the tax rolls.” Ms. Colbath changed the second sentence in paragraph 3, page 6 to read: “She commented that future tax law changes could dissipate the increments and increase the risk and that issue should be discussed further.” Mr. Lawless changed paragraph 5, page 13 to read: “Mr. Lawless added that the concept of bringing transit from outlying communities into the metropolitan areas was another layer of the transportation system that was conspicuously missing from discussions.” Ms. Levis, moved, seconded by Mr. Belcher to approve the minutes of November 10, November 17, December 1, December 8, and December 15, 2003; and Janu- ary 5, and January 12, 2004, as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. III. WORK SESSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: ARTERIAL COLLECTOR STREET PLAN AMENDMENTS Mr. Rusch introduced the work session on the Arterial Collector Street Plan Amendments. He said the Planning Commission was not the Planning Division. He said the Planning Commission was an unpaid volunteer, body composed of ordinary citizens appointed by the Eugene City Council that reviewed land use actions of the Planning Division and made recommendations to the City Council for City Council action. As volunteers, he added, they engaged in activities to help make the City of Eugene a better place for all to live and do business. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 2 Mr. Rusch said the Planning Commission had been assured that the normal citizen participation process had been followed for this process. Mr. Rusch asked Mr. McNeel to review the citizen review process that had been used for this project. Mr. McNeel said the Planning Commission had taken an unusual step and reopened the public record on the Arterial Collector Street Plan Amendments following the November 17 meeting. He said the Public Works staff had notified the Crest Drive Neighborhood Association that the record had been reopened and would remain open until January 2004. He added that the Neighborhood Association invited Mr. McNeel and Mr. Lowe to its December 16, 2003 meeting to provide clarification on the refinement plan amendment. Mr. McNeel said an effort had been made to notify people that the record was open. He added that there had been some written response during the reopened period, copies of which were included in the agenda packet. At Mr. Belcher’s request, Mr. McNeel outlined the public involvement process used for the Arterial Collector Street Plan Amendments which began in 1999 with designation of the Crest Drive Neighbor- hood as a special study area. Mr. McNeel outlined the process for the Crest Drive Neighborhood, noting that thousands of postcards were mailed in 2002. He noted that it took almost a year to complete the special study. He said today the Planning Commission would deliberate and make recommendations to the City Council. He added that the City Council would conduct a public hearing to listen to neighbor- hood concerns, the recommendations of City staff, and whatever additional considerations were placed on the project by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lowe clarified how the interested parties list was development and winnowed. He said initially, thousands of people were notified at the beginning of the process. He said the list was winnowed to those people who indicated continued interest, by submitting written testimony or testifying at public hearings. He added that budget constraints precluded continued mass mailings. He said the process relied on people showing interest. He said the current interested parties list was much smaller than the initial mailing list and would continue to include only to those people who submitted testimony. Ms. Levis said that it was not unusual for residents of neighborhoods to feel as though they had not been heard. She iterated that the City Council would make the final decision on the plan amendments, and said Planning Commission members would help concerned citizens work through the process. At Mr. Belcher’s request, Ms. Muir circulated a sign-up sheet, for guests to add their names and mailing addresses to the Interested Parties list. Mr. Rusch asked Mr. McNeel to present a summary of the staff recommendation for the plan amend- ments. Mr. McNeel referred to the February 23, 2004 Agenda Item Summary entitled, Work Session: Amend- ments to Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan (ACSP)(RA03-6). He noted at the November 4, 2003 public hearing, the Planning Commission requested that staff prepare additional information on CSD Standards, including information on the nature of assurances that the City could provide to residents that their input and concerns would be taken into account when future projects were being developed. He added that the Purpose section in the ACSP included text that could be applied city-wide. Most situations involving street construction or improvements will require a degree of flexibility in applying the design standards. For both new and existing streets, MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 3  there may be trees, buildings, right-of way limitations or other features which may cause a narrower street to be constructed or may require ‘custom fitting’ of certain design features. Public input from residents along the street and users of the street will need to be coupled with technical expertise, to create a street design that is sen- sitive to the specific needs and features of each situation. Mr. McNeel reviewed three suggested motions: 1. Move to recommend that the Council approve the adoption of the revised Figure 60, Street classi- fication Map in the Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan. 2. Move to recommend that the Council approve the addition of Figure 51a, a new Example Neigh- borhood collector utilizing Context Sensitive Design Standards. 3. Move to recommend that Council approve the addition of Context Sensitive Design Standards in the Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Street, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways in Exhibit A of the ACSP. In response to questions from Mr. Lawless, Mr. McNeel described the process for assessment fee calculation. Mr. McNeel said classifying all streets as local streets was a possibility and that all local streets were assessed at 100% on the abutting property. He added that on collector streets and above, assessments were based upon a percentage of the costs, with some costs such as intersections, funded through transportation system development charges. He noted that the total dollar amount could conceivably be lower for streets identified as other than local streets, particularly with context sensitive design standards (CSD). Mr. Lawless clarified that CSD could impact the scope and cost of any type of road development and could be recommended for application on local streets as well as on collector streets. In response to questions from Mr. Rusch, Mr. McNeel confirmed that intensive staff participation, an extensive communication process and neighborhood participation with the CSD process would contribute to increased costs. In response to questions from Ms. McMillan, Mr. McNeel replied that design standards for local street plans were embodied in the Arterial and Collector Street Plan. He added that the proposed plan provided for modification to the street guidelines for all streets in the city. In response to questions from Mr. Belcher, Mr. McNeel said if a road had natural features, the CSD would be applied. As an example, he cited the recently completed reconstruction of the North Delta Highway between Green Acres and Ayers Road, where an existing underground bioswale drainage system was incorporated into the design. He added that the CSD as well as traffic calming features were being included as much as possible in all major street reconstructions. Mr. McNeel added that application of CSD may be a design-as-you-survey process when designing some streets such as Friendly Street, with steep grades and tight curves. In response to Mr. Belcher’s question if cost effectiveness could be added to the six key principles of CSD as described on page 23, Attachment 5, Mr. McNeel replied that it could. Referring to the traffic count map on the wall, Mr. Belcher noted that many vehicles used local streets to MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 4 cut through between neighborhoods. He added that improvements may produce unintended consequences of increased traffic and speeds. Mr. McNeel replied this was a dilemma all over Eugene, whereby people gravitate to improved roads. He added that appropriate traffic calming features were being successfully integrated into improvement projects. Mr. McNeel emphasized that such features needed approval from the Eugene Fire Department to enable emergency services vehicles to access homes within the adopted response time. In response to Mr. Belcher’s question, Mr. McNeel referred to page 26, Attachment 6 that identified 18 types of traffic calming devices 12 of which are allowed on neighborhood collector streets. Mr. McNeel said every effort would be made to avoid increased speeds and encouraging additional cut-through traffic. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. McNeel confirmed that the additional costs of traffic calming features would be added to property assessments. In response to questions from Mr. Belcher, Mr. McNeel referred to the new assessment policy, noting that some of the larger costs were distributed across a large area when practical. Mr. McNeel said costs could be estimated accurately only with detailed survey work and data collection. Mr. McNeel said transporta- tion SDCs were typically used for intersection improvements and additional width to accommodate transit or bicycle travel. He added that the SDC fund was currently low and there was significant competition for those funds. Mr. Belcher said it was important to move forward with projects that protected the interests of the neighborhoods as much as possible while providing a safe environment for cyclists, vehicles and pedestrians. Mr. Rusch expressed his pleasure with the CSD criteria that had been developed and that it was as simple as possible while allowing for collectors. He noted there were one north-south collector, and one east- west collector. In response to Mr. Rusch’s suggestion that Jefferson Street be designated as the north- south collector, Mr. McNeel replied that Jefferson Street had been a primary concern of the Friendly Area Neighbors for a number of years. He added that Jefferson Street already served as a major collector feeding directly to and from Interstate 105. Mr. Rusch noted that Jefferson Street also served a residential neighborhood, which created a transportation conundrum. Mr. McNeel reviewed the various challenges with the current and future street configurations and designations. In response to Mr. Duncan’s questions, McNeel replied that he felt a much different proposal would have been developed for the Lorane Highway had CSD Standards been in place in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. Mr. McNeel noted that designation as a collector street obligated the City to manage volumes and speeds. Mr. Duncan cited concerns for safety and speed were often expressed by people. He suggested strength- ening the language in the CSD Standards key principle of balancing safety to demonstrate concern for those neighborhood concerns. Mr. Belcher expressed thanks for staff listening to neighborhood concerns in removing one of two streets in the original plan. He suggested strengthening the language in the CSD Standards key principle of balancing safety by reducing through traffic. In response to Ms. Colbath’s questions, Mr. McNeel responded if all roads were classified as local, it would be difficult to manage traffic levels on streets, by reducing traffic levels from 1,500 to 1,800 MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 5 vehicles per day from the current levels of 2,000 to 2,500 vehicles per day, without applying drastic measures, such as diverters or blockading roadways. Such diversions create problems for emergency service vehicles and spin traffic off onto adjacent roadways. He added that the difference between improvements on local streets and neighborhood collectors were almost indistinguishable. He noted that a greater mix of traffic calming features were greater on a local street than on a neighborhood collectors. He reiterated that designation of all streets as local streets would make it difficult for staff to adequately manage traffic levels. Ms. Levis noted designation of all streets as local could be more expensive in the end for the neighbors. Mr. Duncan said it would be difficult to reduce traffic in rural areas that continued to grow, while people want to access the city. He said it would be possible to control the direction traffic moved. He said failure to take appropriate action would eventually result uncontrolled growth and traffic running amuck. Mr. Lawless opined that if the community failed to take appropriate action, roadways would continue to deteriorate, increased volumes would force decisions about which roadways got improved, in which order, as funds became available, as projects were approved, 5, 10 or 20 years from now. He added those tough choices would go to the worst conditions, squeakiest wheels, and most likely the suggested roadways that were currently being proposed, regardless of what the street designations were. Mr. McNeel said the current City Council policy related to deteriorated city streets was to let it lie until the citizens came to the City and ask for improvements. He added that maintenance funds were not spent on unimproved roadways, although pothole patching takes place. He noted that repairing deteriorated roadways was typically throwing good money after bad, since the repairs do not hold up. Mr. McNeel said most of the roadways were built many years ago over poor base materials that were difficult to maintain. Mr. Lawless questioned if the improvements that may occur, whether they were a local connector with CSD or a local street with CSD would be relatively indistinguishable. Mr. McNeel replied that was correct. He added that the City Council had consistently avoided forcing improvements although the City Council had the authority to initiate an improvement project on collector streets or above. He added that there was no language in the City Charter the prohibited the City Council from forcing improvements of local streets. Mr. Lawless said he understood that classification as a neighborhood collector would stem the very long term potential future of the classification as a minor arterial. Mr. McNeel said traffic patterns in the area had changed since the United States Postal Service facility relocated to East 33rd Avenue and Willamette Street. He added that the USPS provided some funding for the traffic signal at Willamette Street and Crest Drive. Mr. Belcher said the Planning Commission had a responsibility through the classification system to encourage people to drive the streets as they were designated. He asked if signaling at Crest Drive and Willamette Street would be designed to discourage traffic turning from Willamette Street onto Crest Drive. Mr. McNeel responded that a goal of traffic signal design was to keep the delay at signals to a minimum from both an operational and environmental perspective. He added that that particular signal favored Willamette Street, due to the greater volume of traffic on Willamette Street, but it did allow for left turns from all side street approaches without more than one minute’s delay. In response to Mr. Belcher’s question, Mr. McNeel replied that there were connectivity issues that over time would help facilitate the Blanton Ridge/Willamette Street traffic when further developed occurred. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 6 He added that traffic management was a balancing act, when improvements to one street or neighborhood create traffic problems on other streets or neighborhoods. He said pushing traffic out over the south hills had been dropped as a consideration. He added that population growth in Lane County outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) that would continue to impact traffic in the Crest Drive Neighborhood in the future. In response to Ms. Colbath’s question, Mr. McNeel replied that some streets in the south hills areas would not be able to fully meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) due to steep grades. He added that an effort would be made through CSD standards to make those areas as compliant as possible. Ms. Colbath said she hoped the Planning Commission proposal would be strengthened to include language that we continually consider ways to mitigate through traffic. Mr. McNeel said some things had been done with signage that encouraged traffic to use the major system and cited some examples. Mr. Belcher said he was saddened to only see sidewalks by the school which created a hazard for children. Ms. McMillan expressed her pleasure that the CSD standards for city-wide implementation had come a long way since 1999. She said she hoped this would become an ethic for future street improvement design rather than putting too much onus on the neighborhoods to initiate improvements. Mr. Duncan expressed agreement with Ms. McMillan. He added that the CSD was a wonderful addition to the street maintenance program. Mr. Belcher offered a revision to the Context Sensitive Design Standards. Mr. Belcher, moved, seconded by Ms. Levis to revise the first key principle to read: Balance safety, mobility, cost impact, community and environmental goals in mitigating through traffic in the project. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. This was where Mr. Belcher added his emphasis on cost effectiveness, which the commission agreed to add. Mr. Lawless offered the following suggestions for revisions to CSD Standards language: • Within the objectives of the street classification. • Traffic calming. • Mitigating through-traffic. • Appropriate traffic flow. Following a brief discussion, “Mitigating through-traffic” was deemed an acceptable modification to the CSD Standards language. Mr. Belcher referred to Context Sensitive Design Standards, Public Involvement in Context Sensitive Design Standards, Section 5, Provide the City’s basis for decision making, including policies and guidelines. He suggested adding language that would include giving notice to the City Council about street design decisions. Following a discussion regarding the separation of roles and responsibilities of MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 7 the City Council and staff, Mr. Belcher withdrew his discussion. Mr. Belcher emphasized the need to convey to the City Council the strong concern of the Planning Commission to mitigate through traffic in the neighborhoods. He added that the Planning Commission needed to listen to neighborhood concerns around communication issues. Mr. Duncan requested that the Planning Commission be kept informed on an informal basis about how CSD Standards were working. Ms. McMillan, moved, seconded by Ms. Levis to recommend that the Council approve the addition of Figure 51 a, a new Example of Neighborhood Collector Utilizing Context Sensitive Design Standards as modified today. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Ms. McMillan, moved, seconded by Ms. Levis to recommend that the Council approve the addition of Context Sensitive Design Standards in the Design Stan- dards and Guidelines for Eugene Street, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways in Exhibit A of the ACSP as modified today. Mr. Lawless offered a friendly amendment, adding the language “as their guiding principle”. Ms. McMillan and Ms. Levis accepted Mr. Lawless’ friendly amendment. The motion, as amended, passed unanimously, 6:0. Ms. Levis moved, seconded by Mr. Duncan to recommend that the Council ap- prove the adoption of the revised Figure 60, Street Classification Map in the Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan as modified today. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Planning Commissioners expressed their appreciation to Mr. McNeel for the fine staff work on this project. IV. OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF Ms. Levis said she would not be at the March 8 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Lawless said he would attend the work session regarding the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) with City Council and Lane Transit District this evening. He asked staff to keep him informed of actions related to the BRT. Ms. Muir reminded Planning Commissioners of several upcoming meetings: • March 8 Downtown Renewal Plan Amendments. • March 29 DAPA walking tour. • May 24 Nodes and Code Issues bus tour. • TBA CIC workshop. • TBA Joint meeting with the City Council. Ms. Colbath left the meeting at 1:14 p.m. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 8 There was a brief discussion about the public involvement process. Ms. Muir reviewed the February 9, 2004 City Council work session about priorities including land use issues. Ms. Colbath returned at 1:17 p.m. Mr. Duncan suggested a discussion about future cell tower issues. Ms. Muir added that big box, hospital siting, and cell tower issues had been identified by the City Council as work program issues. Mr. Rusch said that big land use planning issues such as hospital siting should come to the Planning Commission. He added that he had visited the new child care center at the University of Oregon. Ms. Muir reminded the Planning Commission that the City Council was conducting a public hearing on the East Campus plan this evening. Ms. Colbath said she recently conducted a presentation at the South University neighborhood group and would do two more presentations this week. Mr. Rusch adjourned the meeting at 1:25 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2004\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc040223.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 23, 2004 Page 9