Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue March 20, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Steve Nystrom, Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Allen Lowe, Ann Siegenthaler, Neil Björklund; Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Bob Inerfeld, Public Works Department; Kevin Matthews, Charles Biggs, David Sonnichsen, Zachary Vishanoff, J.D. Wagenknecht, Artemid Paz, Jeff Nelson, Hal Bergsma, Chris Ramey, Terri Harding, guests. ABSENT: Phillip Hudspeth, John Lawless, members. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- November 8, 2005 Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to accept the minutes of November 8, 2005 as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. II. SOUTH HILLS HABITAT STUDY CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM Staff: Ann Siegenthaler, 682-5451 Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to accept the staff recommendation on citizen involvement, including all discussion that occurred today. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. III. STATUS REPORT: WALNUT STATION MIXD USE CENTER Staff: Allen Lowe, 682-5113 Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to acknowledge the Walnut Station Mixed Use Development Plan report and remove any designation on preferred alternatives where there was not consensus. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to divide the question. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Page 1  The Planning Commission voted to acknowledge the Walnut Station Mixed Use Development Plan report. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. The Planning Commission voted to remove any designation on preferred alternatives where there was not consensus. The motion passed 4:1, with Mr. Duncan opposed. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Page 2  Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue Mrch 20, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Steve Nystrom, Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Allen Lowe, Ann Siegenthaler, Neil Björklund; Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Bob Inerfeld, Public Works Department; Kevin Matthews, Charles Biggs, David Sonnichsen, Zachary Vishanoff, J.D. Wagenknecht, Artemid Paz, Jeff Nelson, Hal Bergsma, Chris Ramey, Terri Harding, guests. ABSENT: Phillip Hudspeth, John Lawless, members. Ms. Colbath convened the Planning Commission at 11:35 a.m. Ms. Colbath proposed moving agenda item III before item II. She noted consensus from the commissioners. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Colbath noted several people had signed up to speak on the Walnut Station Mixed Use Center (MUC). She said that the Planning Commission did not generally take public comment on items where a public hearing had been scheduled or where the record was closed. Although neither of these situations existed, she explained that comments offered today would not become part of the public record as the Commission moved forward to a public hearing. Speakers wishing to have their comments included in the public record would need to provide testimony at a future the public hearing. Ms. Colbath speakers would be limited to two minutes today. Artemio Paz, 86950 Cedar Flat Road, Springfield, identified himself as president of the local charter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA). He said the national AIA was celebrating its 150th anniversary in 2007, and had asked local chapters to identify and submit architectural projects with relevance for their communities. The national AIA would help fund the projects and assist communities with understanding related issues. Mr. Paz said the local AIA chapter had identified the area on Franklin Boulevard from the Federal Courthouse Building to the entrance of Springfield at the Willamette River. He asked to be included in interested parties on the Walnut Station Mixed Use Development as the project was a part of the area identified by AIA for support. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, addressed the Walnut Node information in the packet. He said the staff recommendation showed bias in reporting, in that it seemed like the staff report showed a lot of conflict around the project and did not show how the conflict would be resolved other than by the Planning Commission. He hoped that each of the Planning Commission members had been intimately involved with the process to enable them to mitigate those conflicts. He said the project should go back to the public to resolve the issues at this point, and not to the Planning Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Page 1 Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, supported Mr. Biggs’ comments. Mr. Vishanoff had worked to get public involvement for a basketball arena siting and financing regarding the no bid contract that would be a subsidy that the community would take on. He said the downtown vision plan was so vague that it did not adequately address the parking garage, adding that it was not appropriate for government to help with the parking garage. Jeff Nelson, 2144 East 15th Avenue, stated that he had submitted a letter dated March 15, 2006 to the Planning Commission. Mr. Nelson, representing himself, said he was appreciative of the efforts Allen Lowe, City of Eugene staff, and Marcy McInelly, Urbsworks, Inc. He said there was a strong commitment from the neighbors to have a developed focused and well thought out comments to assist the Planning Commission with its decision making process. He added that while there were disagreements, there was a significant amount of agreement in the proposals. He recognized that the City was a stakeholder in the process, and suggested that it would be helpful for the neighbors in reaching resolution if the City offered its perspective to the neighbors. Kevin Matthews, P.O. Box 1588, identified himself as representing Friends of Eugene, Southeast Neighbors, and the Citizens’ Nature Project. He said the Friends of Eugene continued to be interested in MUCs and the progress on the Walnut Node. He said it was exciting to see the South Hills Habitat Study (SHHS) starting to take form. He expressed concern that geographic divisions in the community would result from the title SHHS, and suggested using language that emphasized the upland wildlife habitat in the south hills. He suggested listing environmental education organizations higher in the list of interested parties. He added that past City work on Goal 5 had been more oriented toward property owner involvement than towards environmental group involvement. David Hinkley, 1350 Lawrence #1, said he was speaking on behalf of himself only and not on behalf of any organization with which he was affiliated. He referred to a March 15, 2006 letter signed by him and Paul Conte Co-chairs of the Jefferson Westside Neighbors (JWN) , as well as a letter he had sent to the Eugene City Council requesting a zone change moratorium, and a letter he had sent to the Planning and Development Department providing clarifying definitions for the 20 year old refinement plan terminology. Mr. Hinkley said although the people who attended the March 14, 2006 JWN meeting were important, renters who did not normally attend neighborhood meetings were equally important. He said having sufficient rental stocks in a neighborhood that consisted of 75 percent renters according to the last census, kept rental rates reasonable. He said there needed to be a way to do infill that protected property values, protected neighborhood character while, at the same time gradually allowed sufficient infill to permit the development of additional housing units. Mr. Hinkley said growth needed to be looked at in terms of households rather than population. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- November 8, 2005 Page 4, paragraph 5, sentence 1, should read: Mr. Belcher asked if a memorandum of agreement (MOA) could be developed if approval was desired from the governing jurisdiction for land that was acquired outside of the city limits for park construction. Page 5, paragraph 6, delete sentence 4, He added that the Metro Plan did not rezone properties, but did take rezoning into play. Page 5, paragraph 6, sentence 4 should read: He had a hard time justifying the plans findings against the growth management goals, and suggested that the issue needed further study. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Page 2 Page 6, paragraph 9, sentence 1, should read: Ms. Colbath said the proposed plan needed to provide a balance between parks and development. Page 7, paragraph 10, should read: Mr. Belcher said these public lands had a variety of uses and he wished to include them in the PROS plan. Page 8, paragraph 9, sentence 1, should read: Mr. Belcher offered a friendly amendment to include removal of specific project text from the maps and replacement with more generic graphics on the map legends. Page 9, paragraph 1, should read: Mr. Hledik stated that the project list was similar to that included in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that was reviewed annually by the Planning Commission. Page 9, paragraph 14, sentence 1, should read: Mr. Hledik said he would support the motion because it got to the heart of growth management issues, but found it difficult to support the findings as they had been rewritten because they state that the PROS Plan had no effect on buildable lands. Page 10, paragraph 6, should read: Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to divide the question. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The Planning Commission voted to forward a communication to the City Council recommending that the City Council acknowledged the synergistic effect between the PROS Comprehensive Plan and other planning documents. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The Planning Commission voted to forward a communication to the City Council recommending that the City Council consider the plans in totality in balancing the growth management policies. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Page 10, paragraph 10, should read: Mr. Hledik stated that rezoning often mixed up the buildable land ration, noting when acreage was removed for parks it had to be made up somewhere else. Page 11, paragraph 3, should read: Commissioners Belcher, Colbath, Duncan and Hledik volunteered to work as a subcommittee to address City Council concerns. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to accept the minutes of November 8, 2005 as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. II. SOUTH HILLS HABITAT STUDY CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM Ms. Siegenthaler offered the staff report. She stated that on June 27, 2005, the Eugene City Council directed staff to pursue the South Hills Habitat Study (SHHS) following completion of the City’s work on the Eugene Goal 5 Natural Resources Conservation Project. While the Goal 5 MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Page 3 project focused on rivers, streams and wetlands, the City Council was interested in potentially valuable habitat outside of these areas, such as potential pileated woodpecker habitat, oak woodland, and other upland habitat areas. The study area for the SHHS included 700 public and private parcels, comprising more than 2,000 acres within the South Hills. The area within the SHHS study area was previously mapped on the preliminary Eugene Goal 5 Natural Resources Inventory recommended by the Eugene Planning Commission in April 2003, but these areas were removed from the inventory during the adoption process by the Eugene City Council in July 2003. While the boundaries of the SHHS study area generally indicated the extent of upland habitat areas within the South Hills, there was no accurate or current data on specific habitat types or wildlife use. The data from the previous inventory of these habitat areas was collected in the late 1980’s and was no longer applicable or useful in the new inventory. The SHHS would create a new inventory of upland habitat areas in Eugene’s south hills using both onsite and offsite inventory methods to identify, map and evaluate the relative quality of predominantly native tree and shrub communities, oak savanna, natural prairies, and balds. The evaluation would also address rare plants and their habitats, the habitats of state-designated sensitive/critical animal and bird species known to live within the study area. This inventory phase of the project was expected to be completed in October 2006. The next phase of the project, the alternatives and analysis phase, would include potential conservation strategies. The Eugene Planning Commission and City Council would be presented alternatives for addressing habitat conservation, including options to amend Eugene’s Goal 5 inventory, as well as other options. Ms. Siegenthaler explained the timeline and Citizen Involvement Plan, as described in agenda packet information. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Ms. Siegenthaler confirmed that the Planning Commission would serve as the Citizen Involvement Committee for the SHHS project. In response to questions from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Siegenthaler clarified that the inventory completion was expected this summer, leading to a fall Planning Commission public hearing. She added that staff was relying on the consultant to propose a methodology that would work for the particular habitats and this project in the south hills area. She added that completion of the inventory and identification of habitats would help in defining the methodology. Ms. Siegenthaler stated that although staff had not anticipated Planning Commission involvement prior to the public hearing, additional Planning Commission discussion could be incorporated if the Commission so wished. Mr. Duncan opined there were acceptable methodologies for completing the inventories. He said it would be important to ensure that the process used was acceptable to all sides of the issues prior to work commencing. During the previous natural resource work, Mr. Duncan stated that feedback was regularly received from the public that they had not received notice about the work. He asked what methods would be used to ensure that all concerned property owners and concerned citizens would be informed about the SHHS work. Ms. Siegenthaler replied that first class mailings were sent to property owners. She added that a broad approach including direct mailings with invitations to the public workshops was part of the citizen involvement plan. Additionally, permission forms for property owners to sign and return provided an additional interaction. She stated the department website, postings in the City Council newsletter, and the community calendar in the newspaper would be utilized. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Yeiter stated that when properties were not owner occupied, a second mailing was sent to “occupant” in an attempt to reach renters. In response to Mr. Carroll, Ms. Siegenthaler said Phase II examples of objectives information sharing on other city related efforts and programs included ongoing maintenance, acquisition priorities and other Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) programs related to stream corridors and water quality protection. She said the Ridgeline area study currently underway looked at some of large city-owned parcels that contained broad areas for management for recreation, wildlife, and scenic values. She stated that the planning study would respond only to habitat issues and plant communities, whereas the other studies responded to other state or City Council directives. Mr. Carroll asked if there would be impacts on private property owners outside of Goal 5? Ms. Siegenthaler replied there was potential for that in the PROS study in the Ridgeline area in which broad management issues were under review. In response to Mr. Belcher, Ms. Siegenthaler was unsure how prior efforts by the Citizens’ Nature Project in collecting information would be incorporated into the current process. She hoped that group would participate in the current efforts. Mr. Belcher asked what actions staff would take to evaluate property if the property owner denied the City access? Ms. Siegenthaler replied that staff would rely in part on the consultant to recommend ways in which a valid inventory could be done, and valid data could be collected and analyzed in a manner that had scientific credibility and accuracy at the level required. Additionally, other property owners and the City’s geographic information system (GIS) would be utilized. Mr. Belcher suggested that staff make it clear to property owners when seeking permission to enter their property that the project would move forward and the better information would help in making accurate recommendations. Mr. Belcher recommended that information provided to the public should include not only the Planning Commission CIC process, but also the approval process through the City Council. He stated that the Citizens’ Nature Program and the Oregon Field Ornithologists should be included in the interested parties list. Although the project name had come from the City Council, Mr. Belcher supported a name change for the project since it covered a geographic area larger than the south hills. He added that it would be appropriate to install larger signs on appropriate roads, to notify the public of the study. Ms. Colbath asked if the public involvement process for the SHHS would be similar to that of the Goal 5 study. She asked if members of the public would see the citizen involvement process as similar to that of Goal 5. Ms. Siegenthaler replied that the Goal 5 study was an anomaly in that it evolved from a broader metropolitan area citizen involvement plan to a local study. She said many of the methods, such as the website, direct mailings, and public workshops would be the same. She said there was some consistency between the SHHS and Goal 5 citizen involvement processes. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Page 5 Ms. Colbath asked if the Planning Commission would be seeing the SHHS information before it went to a public hearing. Mr. Björklund explained that Goal 5 started out as a metro project with review of the citizen involvement plan by the Joint Planning Commission Committee (JPCC). He said there were Planning Commission check-ins for updates of previous Planning Commission actions and recommendations before the final public hearings, but Goal 5 had been in process for many years. He added it would be possible to provide periodic check-ins for the commission on the SHHS. Ms. Colbath said renaming the SHHS to the Upland Habitat Study or similar name would be appropriate. Mr. Belcher said the Goal 5 inventory had been one of the higher interest and higher controversy projects during his tenure on the commission. He encouraged more than the usual outreach that included providing information in the community calendar and placing advertisements in the Register Guard and the Weekly. Mr. Belcher recommended that the response letters to property owners include a yes/no response to serve as an acknowledgement of the letter. Mr. Carroll supported a name change for the study. He said he would be interested in an update at the beginning of Phase II when the options for implementation strategies were being developed. Ms. Colbath summarized the discussion stating the majority of the commission wanted a public hearing, wanted to have response forms from property owners, was interested in a name change, that signs that be installed in potential study areas, Citizens’ Nature Program and the Oregon Field Ornithologists be included in the interested parties list, and that advertisements be placed in local newspapers. Possible name changes suggested included Uplands Habitat Study and Uplands Wildlife Study. Mr. Björklund stated that the Council direction was to only address upland habitats in the south hills, noting that there were other upland habitats in the Goal 5 inventory that would not be addressed by Council direction with this study. He said the exception, as identified on the map, was the oak woodland that staff was recommending adding to the study area because of its uniqueness, high value and the scarcity of oak woodland, as being located in what most people consider the south hills. He said calling the study the Upland Habitat study could be confusing when other Goal 5 inventory sites were not being addressed. Mr. Yeiter said staff would work on naming the study with the consultant. In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Yeiter said staff would make the decision on the study name. Mr. Hledik said if the south hills were specifically defined, and if adding oak woodlands exceeded the City Council’s intent. Ms. Siegenthaler said the term south hills was defined in the South Hills study. Mr. Björklund iterated that staff had recommended adding some areas to the study for scientific reasons, for the value of the habitat and because they were in the hills south bordering to Eugene. It would be up to the Planning Commission and the City Council to later decide if this was a good or bad idea, and act accordingly. He said the map illustrated some areas outside the urban growth boundary (UGB) for which staff was recommending off-site study because they were publicly owned and the value of lands inside could depend upon their connection to other protected lands. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. Nystrom said the dividing line for the SHHS was MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Page 6 18th Avenue. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Nystrom responded that technically, everything south of 18th Avenue was considered part of the south hills. He suggested that staff would develop several options for Planning Commission consideration based upon Council direction. Mr. Björklund confirmed Mr. Belcher’s understanding that Phase I outreach would take place in all of the areas discussed, but areas to be considered in Phase II would be determined at a later time. Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to accept the staff recommendation on citizen involvement, including all discussion that occurred today. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. III. STATUS REPORT: WALNUT STATION MIXD USE CENTER Mr. Lowe said the purpose of today’s discussion was to review the elements of the vision that has resulted from the previous ten months of work in the Walnut Station planning area and to work toward selection of a preferred design alternative for the area. He said that there was substantial agreement on many of the ideas embodied in the Preferred Alternative, but there was also significant disagreement on some elements of the draft design. Mr. Lowe said the staff would continue to work with individual property owners and other stakeholders to attempt to resolve their concerns and minimize conflicts between various stakeholder’s positions. He said that Phase I of the project had inadequate funds to address the many complex issues related to the street network, but that Phase II of the project included an extensive traffic modeling component. He also said that many of the unresolved issues can best be addressed through design studies; Phase II will allow design investigations to help all of us understand the design implications. The endorsement asked for was a request to move forward to Phase II in good faith that the outline of ideas solicited through the process would lead to a conclusion that was consistent with public input. Mr. Lowe distributed the following handouts: The Phase I Citizen Involvement Plan approved by the Planning Commission in August 2005; a matrix identifying issues about which there was not clear consensus. Mr. Lowe said all of the feedback received to date via surveys and would be available at the March 23 public forum. Mr. Lowe said a March 14, 2006 letter from the Fairmount Neighborhood Association (FNA) asserted that significant elements of the preferred plan were not representative of the input from the neighborhood He said that a full copy of the Alternatives Evaluation survey data had been included in the agenda packet for the meeting to allow commissioners to check the data against the summary of input provided by the consultant. He said that the Analysis of Comments in Attachment C was, in fact, representative of the feedback of the property owners and participants in that part of the process. Mr. Lowe stated that the FNA had indicated that the proposal was Urbsworks’ preferred plan, which was not the case. The proposal, he said, was the City of Eugene staff recommendation for a preferred alternative that had developed with the assistance of Urbsworks, a consultant hired by and working under the direction of City staff. He said that Urbsworks efforts were also guided by MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Page 7 both the Technical Advisory Committee and the Steering Committee, both of which had Planning Commission representatives. He emphasized that the proposal represented technical work prepared by the consultant at the direction of City staff. Ms. Colbath said that Mr. Lawless was the commission’s representative on the technical advisory committee, and Mr. Duncan and Mr. Lawless represented the commission on the steering committee. Mr. Duncan reported that he had attended four Steering Committee work sessions, and Mr. Lawless had attended all of the Technical Advisory and Steering Committee meetings. Additionally Mr. Duncan said he had spent time with City and Urbworks staff outside of the public sessions to review the project. He agreed with Mr. Lowe that the proposal was not Urbworks’ preferred alternative, but rather came out of quite a bit of work by staff and the public. Marcy McInelly, Urbsworks’ staff, offered a PowerPoint presentation that summarized the information included in the agenda packet, and responded to commissioners’ questions. Mr. Duncan said the process had been an extensive one that offered a new approach to visioning. He added that testing and modeling would need to occur to determine if any of the ideas could work. The public as well as City staff, the Planning Commission and the UO would participate throughout the process. Mr. Belcher asked if the Garden Way alternative was intended to carry local or through traffic, or both. Ms. McInelly said Garden Way would carry local traffic in Phase I of the preferred alternative, while in Phase II, it would carry both. The proposal would also extend the local street network as far as possible by reducing the size of the super blocks within the Walnut Station area to create easier and more convenient access to future businesses and residences in the study area. Mr. Belcher stated that he wanted the process to move forward without undue influence by the Planning Commission, while acknowledging that the preferred alternative had not yet been decided. He expressed discomfort with forwarding a preferred alternative. Mr. Sullivan asked how critical was the traffic carrying capacity to support the increased intensity of development on the north side of Franklin Boulevard. He asserted that what to do with Garden Avenue was a critical, fundamental question. Ms. McInelly replied that Franklin Boulevard was currently at its threshold but could accommodate more than 30,000 vehicles per day with a new design that included synchronized, signalized intersections; those kinds of changes had been proven to carry a larger volume at a slower speed, allowing for a reduction in the number of travel lanes on similar facilities. Ms. McInelly said the intensity of residential and mixed use development on Garden Avenue could function with the local street network. Mr. Carroll queried about the proportion of the next phase compared to the work completed. He also asked how options would be prioritized and eliminated. He added that there had been concern expressed about Agate Street and its capacity, as well as how it impacted the north/south connections in the neighborhood at a recent FNA meeting. Mr. Lowe stated that the Agate Street functional study and Fairmount traffic calming study, MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Page 8 currently being done by the Public Works Department, were separate from the Walnut Station Mixed Use Development Plan work. He explained that the Walnut Station work program would wrap in the results of those two studies. Mr. Lowe said the FNA had shown long-term and consistently concern with the impacts of additional traffic intrusion on the neighborhood. Mr. Lowe added that Phase II was more complex than Phase I. He declined to reveal more about the scope of work since Urbsworks would be a candidate for the contract. Any discussion would give the contractor an unfair advantage in the contractor selection process, thus eliminating the contractor from participating in the process. Mr. Carroll noted that parking on Franklin Boulevard was a central theme and had raised concerns. Mr. Lowe said there was a need for some immediate modeling to outline the main components of each street configuration and to enable people to understand the proposals in a way that would either eliminate them or keep them under consideration. One of the most important questions was what would happen to Franklin Boulevard with on-street parking. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Lowe replied that the UO owned the Williams Bakery property and the RRP as well as several vacant parcels. The UO Foundation owned the Romania block as well as several adjacent sites. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Lowe said that the role of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) role was to serve on the Technical Advisory Committee and the Steering Committee, as well as providing funding for the project. Ms. Colbath said when the East Campus Study was done, Agate Street was not meeting its potential for functioning as a minor arterial street for a variety of reasons. She added that the neighborhood had called for a study to improve the function of Agate Street. Mr. Lowe responded this was being addressed in the Agate Street Study being conducted by Public Works. In response to Ms. Colbath, Ms. McInelly said that the cumulative number of households in the report referred to the total number of new households for the proposed development. Ms. Colbath asked how new easements and new rights-of-way (r-o-w) would effect existing buildings or properties. She said some stakeholders had indicated this would affect their properties. She said she had a difficult time envisioning Garden Avenue as a throughway for traffic and asked for feedback on how this would occur. Mr. Duncan responded that the Garden Avenue r-o-w already existed, and would support the work currently proposed, thus negating the need to take additional property. Mr. Lowe said one of the most troublesome elements of the potential Garden Way improvement, as described, was the need to connect through the Black Angus property to Franklin Boulevard and through other property, on the west end of Garden, to connect with Millrace Drive. He said that the Black Angus property was currently being redeveloped for a high intensity use, and the property owner needed some certainty around the future design. On the east end, property owners were concerned about future r-o-w impacts on their properties. Mr. Lowe said there were several street alignment issues in the RRP area that would be addressed MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Page 9 in the Phase II investigation in an attempt to minimize takings and acquisition needs. Most changes along Garden Avenue most like would be able to be accommodated in the existing r-o-w or with a minimal improvement to 60 to 65 feet in street width. He said the greater impact would be along Franklin Boulevard for a multi-way boulevard that would likely take more than 120 feet. Mr. Duncan said traffic engineering was discussed in the context of the Franklin Boulevard redevelopment and on-site parking in the existing r-o-w. The traffic engineers’ theory was that traffic would flow better by controlling speed and slowing traffic. Mr. Duncan stated that he was not in favor of using the term “referred alternative”, because he felt the process was one of gathering many ideas, with a significant latitude and input yet to come. He said the process had provided an opportunity to remove unpopular or unworkable ideas early in the process. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to acknowledge the Walnut Station Mixed Use Development Plan report and remove any designation on preferred alternatives where there was not consensus. Mr. Belcher said he did not want to adopt a preferred alternative for Franklin Boulevard when there were at least two participants who had significant disagreement, and when there was insufficient information to illustrate if the street could accommodate proposed traffic volumes. Mr. Lowe, in response to Mr. Belcher, stated there was a subjective nature to the process whereby a recommendation needed to be made based upon all of the data and information provided. He said staff developed recommendations for decision makers based upon input from all stakeholders. He said that the State of Oregon’s process demanded there be a starting point for Phase II funding. He said the City of Eugene had spent $70,000 on Phase I, while Phase II was virtually totally state funded. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Terri Harding, ODOT Project Manager, said that the state wanted to work with the City of Eugene on the project. She said calling the alternative the preferred alternative, and then not using that alternative would result in ODOT failing to follow its statement of work. She suggested using language that indicated that the alternatives had been developed, and would need modeling to determine which options were preferred. Mr. Lowe asked the Planning Commission to acknowledge that it may not be possible to reach true consensus on some elements of the plan. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to divide the question. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. The Planning Commission voted to acknowledge the Walnut Station Mixed Use Development Plan report. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. The Planning Commission voted to remove any designation on preferred alternatives where there was not consensus. The motion passed 4:1, with Mr. Duncan opposed. Mr. Belcher stated that despite his concern with the term preferred alternative, he wanted to acknowledge the wonderful work that staff and the consultant were doing, and expressed his appreciation for their efforts. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Page 10 Mr. Lowe said he would return to the Planning Commission before May. He added that he would develop a terminology change and advise the commission about the change. Mr. Duncan clarified his vote on the term preferred alternative, in that he viewed the term in a general sense. Mr. Lowe said a book entitled, The Boulevard Book: History, Evolution, Design of Multiway Boulevards, by Allan B. Jacobs, et al had been ordered for use by the Planning Commission. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Mr. Yeiter said Planning Director interviews were taking place today. B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Belcher invited commissioners to attend the City Club meetings on April 7 and April 17, 2006 at the Downtown Athletic Club, where land use management in Eugene would be the discussion topic. Ms. Colbath said the subcommittee met on March 13, 2006, and would meet on March 27, 2006, to review the staff proposal. She added that the subcommittee planned to bring its recommendations to the Planning Commission on April 10, 2006. She asked that all commissioners contact their Council buddies to request a joint meeting during the first two weeks of May. Mr. Belcher said the subcommittee was developing four options for the Planning Commission’s consideration to forward to the City Council: • Propose a process that would identify opportunity siting. • Propose a process that would identify how opportunity site planning would take place. • Propose a process for ways to look at the implications and needs for growth in Eugene. • Propose a process to address compatibility and infill questions. Ms. Colbath stated that there was a meeting on March 23, 2006 on the City Hall Master Plan. Ms. Colbath adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:46 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2006\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc060320.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Page 11