Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue January 29, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President; Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Lisa Gardner, Allen Lowe, Ann Siegenthaler, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Tom Larsen, Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Michael Bauer, Tom Brennan, David Knowles, Marcy McInelly, project consultants; William Floyd McEntire, Jeanne Wagenkneckt, Larry Ksionzyk, Mary Weber, David Sonnichsen, Ryan Cesca, Danny Novick, Eilidh MacLean, Diony Lopez, Carl Lenhardt, Lisa Kroner, Zach Vishanoff, Michael Smith, guests. ABSENT: Jon Belcher, Anthony McCown, members. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. WORK SESSION: WALNUT STATION—FRANKLIN BOULEVARD REDESIGN Staff: Allen Lowe, 682-5113 II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 29, 2007 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue January 29, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President; Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Lisa Gardner, Allen Lowe, Ann Siegenthaler, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Tom Larsen, Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Michael Bauer, Tom Brennan, David Knowles, Marcy McInelly, project consultants; William Floyd McEntire, Jeanne Wagenkneckt, Larry Ksionzyk, Mary Weber, David Sonnichsen, Ryan Cesca, Danny Novick, Eilidh MacLean, Diony Lopez, Carl Lenhardt, Lisa Kroner, Zachary Vishanoff, Michael Smith, guests. ABSENT: Jon Belcher, Anthony McCown, members. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, highlighted problems with the Walnut Node Plan, including lack of financial information and the University’s backlog of maintenance projects. Michael Smith, 1630 Arthur Place, wished to address the Westmoreland Housing. Ms. Gardner clarified the record on the Westmoreland Housing was open for testimony to the Hearings Official, but not for the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith said he was the chief petitioner for and speaking on behalf of the Human Rights Party of Oregon. He said the Metro Plan document was long and specific, and asked that the Commission talked with Lane Council of Government (LCOG) for guidance when to grant zone change requests. Mark Gillem, 1799 Fairmont, thanked Commissioners for their willingness to meet with students for a presentation on multi-way boulevards on Friday, February 2, 2007. Tom Connor, 1655 Franklin Boulevard, asked for information about how to provide information to the Planning Commission. Mr. Lowe explained the process to Mr. Connor. I. WORK SESSION: WALNUT STATION—FRANKLIN BOULEVARD REDESIGN A document entitled Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways, November 1999 was distributed to commissioners. Mr. Knowles introduced the consultant team on the Walnut Station—Franklin Boulevard redesign project. He offered a PowerPoint presentation on the project status. The consultant team had prepared two “bundles” of street components on which they hoped to solicit direction from the Planning Commission by the end of the meeting. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 29, 2007 Page 1 Mr. Knowles and Mr. Lowe responded to questions posed by the Planning Commission at the January 22, 2007 meeting. Mr. Lowe said staff had asked property owners to submit additional information. Three pieces of testimony had been received. All additional testimony would be included in the agenda packet for the next mailing. Mr. Knowles suggested that the Planning Commissioners ask about the assumptions students made during their presentations at the design studio presentation scheduled for February 2, 2007, just as they have asked about the assumptions made by staff and the consultants during development of the materials for Planning Commission consideration. Mr. McNeel explained that Public Works staff had driven the three routes under consideration, including Franklin Boulevard, 30th Avenue, and I-105, to measure time and distance. The conclusion was that there was little savings in time or distance between 8:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. on a weekday, on either of the two likely alternatives, thus concluding that it would take an appreciable amount of congestion on Franklin Boulevard to push traffic onto either of the alternatives. Mr. Knowles said one of today’s goals was for Planning Commissioners to share their experiences as they performed their field trips. Commissioners shared their observations and experiences. Mr. Brennan offered a PowerPoint presentation and facilitated a discussion on tradeoffs and concepts of the automobile component of local access. He provided information on the base case of how Franklin Boulevard functioned today and examples of concepts for future design. Additionally, he provided information on the 2025 Boulevard Concept. He said development of a regional model indicated that afternoon peak hours would have an increase of 25 to 30 percent or 41,000 to 43,000 vehicles by 2025. Mr. Knowles said questions the commission should keep in mind during its discussions were: • Should Franklin Boulevard be modeled with two through traffic lanes for east and west bound traffic? • Was some level of automobile delay acceptable to help accommodate pedestrian crossing needs in the corridor? • Should the Franklin Boulevard conceptual design address access management and to what degree? • Should Franklin Boulevard be redesigned as a transit and pedestrian oriented street if acceptable levels of automobile mobility could be maintained, and what would those levels be? Mr. McNeel explained how Franklin Boulevard functions today, noting that the street had changed since the reconstruction for the Lane Transit District (LTD) EmX. Mr. Knowles explained the methodology used for modeling Franklin Boulevard and responded to commissioners questions. Mr. Lawless left at 12:30 p.m. Ms. McInelly offered a PowerPoint presentation on the pedestrian component of street design. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 29, 2007 Page 2 Mr. Knowles explained the Local Access Components: • What do the automobile users need? • What do the businesses need? • Historical arterial design. • Arterial retrofit. Mr. Knowles reviewed the pros and cons of on and off street parking, and curb cuts, with the assistance of PowerPoint graphics. • On street parking pros: o Provides buffer for the pedestrian environment. o Provides an opportunity for businesses to share the cost of parking with the public. o Reduces the cost to businesses by reducing the number of spaces they need to provide on their own property. • On street parking cons: o Impedes flow of traffic if no side access lane. o May be difficult in transition from off street to on street parking to ensure an adequate supply of parking for all of the uses. • Off street parking pros: o Predictability for businesses about the amount of parking. o Perceived transaction time for driver seems less than if they can not identify parking in advance. • Off street parking cons: o Provides for many curb cuts which is not good for pedestrians. o Cost to provide parking for land owners or businesses. o Automobile oriented environment in which pedestrian needs were more secondary. Ms. McInelly reviewed the elements of Bundle 1 for Planning Commission consideration: • Throughput prioritized. • Pedestrian edges as good as possible. • All within the existing right-of-way (r-o-w). • Two bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lanes. • No on street parking. • Wider landscape edge at the parking strip. Ms. McInelly reviewed the elements of Bundle 2 for Planning Commission consideration: • Pedestrians and automobiles balances. • Pedestrians and bicyclist amenities at highest level. • Thoughtful input. Mr. Knowles facilitated a conversation in which the Planning Commission compared the bundles comparing the following issues: • Consider policies, political and fiscal impacts of the various design alternatives. • Pedestrian environment each of the proposed bundles would create: o Lateral—across the street and crossing environment for transit users and pedestrians. o Longitudinal—along the street pedestrian environment and movements as they MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 29, 2007 Page 3  moved through the corridor or accessed businesses. • Throughput or impact of the design on the movement of vehicles through the corridor. • Impact of the street design on land use, and the kinds of land uses the design would facilitate and encourage in the future. Mr. Lowe said today’s PowerPoint presentation would be on the website by January 30, 2007. At the request of Mr. Lowe, the Planning Commission agreed by consensus to extend the February 12, 2007 meeting by 30 minutes. Mr. Knowles said the consulting team would return in two weeks with design ideas to present to the Planning Commission. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Duncan reminded commissioners of the neighborhood summit scheduled for February 17, 2007. Ms. Gardner agreed to e-mail information to commissioners about the event. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:35 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) c:\documents and settings\cemnllh\desktop\linda\2007\01 january\pc070129.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 29, 2007 Page 4