Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue April 16, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Allen Lowe, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Rob Inerfeld, Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Michael Bauer, David Knowles, Marcy McInelly, project consultants; Lloyd McEntire, Carolyn Kranzler, Cobb Lisalles, Terry Connolly, Luke Annala Kive, Steve Gib, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: FRANKLIN BOULEVARD MODELING RESULTS—WALNUT STATION MIXED USE CENTER 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 April 16, 2007 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue April 16, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Allen Lowe, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Rob Inerfeld, Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Michael Bauer, David Knowles, Marcy McInelly, project consultants; Lloyd McEntire, Carolyn Kranzler, Cobb Lisalles, Terry Connolly, Luke Annala Kive, Steve Gib, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Mr. Duncan convened the Planning Commission meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There was no one wishing to offer public comment. I. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: FRANKLIN BOULEVARD MODELING RESULTS—WALNUT STATION MIXED USE CENTER Mr. Lowe provided the staff report. He said the purpose of today’s meeting was to report on the results of modeling work carried out over the past six weeks for the Franklin Multi-way Boulevard concept and the no-build alternative. He distributed and reviewed a handout entitled WALNUT STATION MIXED USE CENTER Upcoming Meetings 4/16/07. He said Mr. Lawless was a member of the project Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Mr. Lowe introduced David Knowles with David Evans and Associates, Inc., who introduced the project team of Marcy McInelly, Mary Weber and Mike Bauer. He also introduced City staffers Gary McNeel and Rob Inerfeld who provided significant contributions to the multi-way boulevard analysis. Mr. Knowles stated at the February 12, 2007 meeting, Planning Commission had asked the consultants to do some additional modeling on the multi-way boulevard versus the no-build concept. Mr. Knowles reviewed Attachment A—Franklin Boulevard Street Design Concepts— Planning Commission Direction (2/12/07) included in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) which summarized the commission’s discussion. Mr. Knowles reviewed the agenda for today’s discussion: • Purpose of today’s meeting. • How the regional forecast model works. • Synchro/Sim model analysis of no-build and multi-way concept. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 16, 2007 Page 1  • Qualitative look at multi-way concept. • Staff recommendation. How the regional forecast model works/Synchro/Sim model analysis of no-build and multi- way concept Mr. McNeel reported that the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) operated the regional traffic model (Synchro/Sim Traffic model) utilizing LCOG’s regional planning model for estimates of growth in vehicle trips in the corridor by 2025. The model estimated performance of the transportation system as measured by intersection congestion and travel times, Synchro/Sim simulated turn movements, queuing impacts and cross street traffic. He acknowledged modeling efforts became less reliable further out in the timeline. He said multiple iterations of select areas could be run factoring in different variables. He added reconfiguration of the I-5 exit ramp at Franklin Boulevard was not taken into consideration. Mr. Bauer distributed and reviewed copies of a document that contained the following charts: • Estimated PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations and Policy Standards • Sim Traffic Report: PM Peak Hour Eastbound Franklin Blvd. Arterial Level of Service. • Sim Traffic Report: PM Peak Hour Westbound Franklin Blvd. Arterial Level of Service. Mr. Bauer responded to questions from commissioners. QUESTION: What was the tolerance level for traffic delays? ANSWER: Eugene has a relatively low congestion level. Portland had much more congestion and is booming economically. It was important to try to provide alternate modes, including walking, using the Lane Transit District (LTD) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and locating development so people did not have to make as many vehicle trips. There had been relatively no growth on Franklin Boulevard during the past 20 years. Q: What was the traffic control for the access lanes at intersections? A: Options included having the side lane moving on signaled control and the side lane controlled with a stop sign. Multi-way boulevards are an old street and urban design concept that is being revived to address contemporary traffic problems in several locations around the US. Multi-way boulevards are used extensively in Europe. Q: How would traffic from the proposed arena impact the LOS? A: Most activities at the proposed arena will occur during off-peak hours. These activities had not been factored into the current data and will need to be examined. Event traffic management will require an entirely different analysis. Q: How were pedestrian crossings addressed? A: Under the no-build option, there was no change from the current controls. Under the build option, signal timing was set up for the main line. Median width is important under this option. There was a challenge to make the area more walkable and not make crossing more difficult than it is today by managing the pedestrian crossing controls while not impeding traffic flow. Additional pedestrian crossings have been added. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 16, 2007 Page 2 Q: What would be the impact on businesses that were located mid-block with the build option? A: Businesses were less likely to garner drive-by traffic. Customers would learn to park off-site and walk to the businesses. As we become more urban, different devices are needed to address changing levels of traffic, more people, and different land use configurations. Visitors would adapt to change. Qualitative look at multi-way concept Ms. McInelly distributed and reviewed a handout entitled Comparative Analysis of the No-build and Multiway Boulevard Scenarios—Qualitative Look. Q: How would future development or redevelopment be impacted by code requirements for open space, sidewalk widths, etc.? A: City codes would cause some changes to the street environment from the sidewalk and behind it, but codes would not cause change within the travel lanes and other street elements. Q: How would increased traffic congestion affect the pedestrian orientation of the neighborhood? Would people still want to go there? A: In general, pedestrians are attracted to congested areas, where there is signalization, protected crossings, wider sidewalks, and lots of retail in the area. Q: Could pedestrian bridges be used to reduce pedestrian and vehicular contacts? A: Although the University of Oregon (UO) had given some consideration to pedestrian bridges, there is very little support for them by the neighborhoods in the Franklin Boulevard area. Mr. Hledik expressed reservations with proceeding with the multi-way boulevard concept due to concerns about the negative impacts on existing businesses. The area is a hospitality driven business area and highly dependent on automobile traffic. Mr. Lowe encouraged commissioners to look at two west coast examples in San Francisco and Berkley, California. Mr. McCown noted there was a high turnover of businesses in the area, and questioned how successful they really were. Mr. Lowe asked the Planning Commission to affirm or deny the staff recommendation to confirm the direction to proceed with a multi-way boulevard concept as the preferred transportation alternative for Franklin Boulevard. He said the commission and the City Council would continue to have opportunities to revisit subsequent plan iterations. Mr. Knowles added that both Planning and Transportation staff were united in their belief that this was the right design recommendation for Franklin Boulevard. It was important to reach a conclusion because it would impact the potential success of the land use plan the commission would be reviewing in the near future to determine what uses would be feasible in the area. Although the proposed plan did not offer everything that everyone wanted, it had a lot to offer. Mr. Duncan said there were many unanswered questions regarding engineering and land use MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 16, 2007 Page 3 issues, making it difficult for him to agree that the commission should move forward. Mr. Lowe asserted the core idea behind mixed use development projects over the last ten years had been about the integration of land use and transportation planning. Fifteen years ago, land use and transportation planning were not integrated across the country. The mixed use process was an attempt to create a comprehensive planning process where iterative discussions about the land use and transportation conditions would be considered in tandem. Unfortunately, it was difficult to always hold comprehensive discussions. Due to the complexity of the projects, it is usually necessary to devote time to land use and transportation issues separately. The process ultimately addressed both issues. Mr. Lowe said staff would bring a comprehensive land use proposal to the commission. The proposal before the commission provided a fairly solid feeling for what the mixed use area character could be. The proposal was intended to be mixed use development with a significant increase in residential population that would allow certain commercial uses to serve the market demand. Mr. Hledik said configuring Franklin Boulevard as a multi-way boulevard would not necessarily encourage the kinds of store front redevelopment it presupposes. Conversely, he was not convinced that creating the multi-way boulevard would not hurt what was already in place. Viable economic businesses were in place. He was not prepared to make the proposed changes. Mr. Belcher opined it was clear there were many businesses that would leave because right-of- way was being taken away and changes in vehicular access would discourage patronage of businesses in the area. However, he did not want to prevent this from moving forward to the next step. He supported a tentative approval to continue the planning and encouraged staff to return with more information about successful west coast projects that were comparable to Eugene. He acknowledged that change was difficult. He struggled with the possibility of businesses having to relocate. Overall, the positives outweigh the negatives. Mr. Lawless was uncomfortable with a blanket approval. He said it was unlikely that the south side of Franklin Boulevard would benefit from the multi-way boulevard concept as much as the north side would. He supported developing other viable incremental approaches that would be driven by the market and set the stage for something that would benefit from the multi-way boulevard concept. There was not much privately owned frontage on the south side for redevelopment. The UO was not interested in developing retail for pedestrian activities along that frontage. He supported a block by block review of the proposed project area. Mr. Lowe said the intent was not to offer a monolithic solution for the entire project. Mr. Carroll said as the urban area developed, the commuting costs would increase. He strongly supported vigorously pursuing policies that committed to providing pedestrian friendly and alternative transportation modes. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Ms. Kneeland, moved to extend the meeting for fifteen minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Kneeland said it was important to remember that opting for no-build was a choice. A variety of City policies that promote looking at alternative transportation, promoting pedestrian and bicycle use, and moving away from car use, should be considered. She supported moving forward to look at the multi-way boulevard. Although she was not convinced the multi-way boulevard was the right direction, she believed the proposal moved in the right direction in MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 16, 2007 Page 4 developing more pedestrian friendly retail land uses. She also struggled with the impact on businesses, and was not convinced it would be bad for all businesses. She was comfortable with moving forward. Mr. Knowles summarized the Planning Commission discussion: • The commission had enough quantitative facts to make a decision. • The commission struggled with the more qualitative facts of judgment of how would decisions impact what happened in the community. • The commission reflected the community sentiment that these were tough questions. • There was more support for the multi-way boulevard concept at a global level, but it was not clear how it would actually work on a block by block basis. • The recommendation would be that the consultant team, including city staff, move forward with a land use plan that continued to assume a multi-way boulevard concept for consideration by the commission. • The team would begin to develop an implementation strategy that would help the commission understand how it would be implemented over a period of time and whether there were block by block solutions that would make the concept more acceptable. Mr. Lowe acknowledged doing the land use work in more detail was the next step. He added the direction from the commission was ambiguous and was unclear on what would be taken to the public on May 9, 2007. Mr. Knowles heard a diversity and split of opinion. It may be necessary to take forward that there was policy support from a land use perspective for the benefits of a multi-way boulevard. There was not support for some of the individual solutions and not enough understanding of how the individual designs would impact Franklin Boulevard to say that the Planning Commission was prepared to endorse the proposal. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff No other items were brought forward by staff. B. Other Items from Commission No other items were brought forward by commissioners. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:40 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2007\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc70416.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 16, 2007 Page 5