Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue May 21, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Steve Nystrom, Lisa Gardner, Alissa Hansen, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Peggy Keppler, Mark Schoening, Public Works Engineering Division. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to approve the minutes from the meeting held on April 26 as amended. The motion passed, 6:0:1; Mr. McCown abstaining. II. PC ACTION: CREST MEADOWS PUD III. ACCESS MANAGEMENT CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PLAN IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission SUMMARY MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 21, 2007 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue May 21, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Steve Nystrom, Lisa Gardner, Alissa Hansen, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Peggy Keppler, Mark Schoening, Public Work Engineering Division. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Mr. Duncan convened the Planning Commission meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no members of the public who wished to give comments at this time. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes was deferred to later in the meeting. II. PC ACTION: CREST MEADOWS PUD Mr. Duncan indicated that the Crest Meadows PUD had been “taken care of.” III. ACCESS MANAGEMENT CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PLAN Ms. Keppler explained that access management had come out of discussions with the City Council regarding better and more efficient use of the street corridors. She said an internal staff group had been convened to look at what access management was and how it should implemented. She anticipated that the work might affect Chapter 9. She reviewed the Citizen Involvement Strategy as outlined in the memorandum entitled Access Management Citizen Involvement Plan dated May 21, 2007. Mr. Hledik asked what issues had raised this discussion at the council level. Ms. Keppler replied that when looking at transportation alternatives for the West Eugene area one tool that had been brought up was a better use of arterial and collector streets. She defined access management as meaning a process for ensuring safe and efficient use of the City’s street network through managing accesses along the corridor. She related that a past traffic engineer had put together an access management policy in 1983 and this has been used since then though it has never been MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 21, 2007 Page 1 codified. She averred that it was not as effective as it would be if it had been codified. Ms. Keppler stated that Chapter 5 had language regarding the responsibilities of the traffic engineer to maintain traffic signals, controls, and access but it did not specify the steps to take in order to maintain safe and efficient access. She said Chapter 7 included driveway controls and limited spacing terminology but it also was not complete. She related that Chapter 9 looked at all of the land use applications. She said it covered the connectivity standards and how wide the corridors were in order to make sure there was safe and efficient ingress and egress. Mr. Hledik surmised from the key messages that there was a focus on infill projects. Ms. Keppler responded that one complaint frequently heard regarding land use applications was in regard to the impact infill would have on the character of a neighborhood due to an increase in traffic. She said having access management guidelines in place would make it possible to have more direction that would require more traffic to use the lower classification of the street. Mr. Belcher asked if staff was thinking that the majority of access management would happen in relation to infill. Ms. Keppler affirmed that this was so. She said the main focus {of access management} at present would be the arterial and collector streets. Mr. Belcher commented that the nexus between access management and the neighborhood initiative priority, as reflected in the memorandum, was not intuitively obvious to him. Mr. Lawless asked for an explanation of the spread of impact that access management would have on infill. He wondered how access management would impact those who proposed to redevelop sites that already had very little access on its corresponding frontage. Ms. Keppler replied that internal staff had asked Lane County and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) on this. She related that they had experienced that as an area redeveloped, effective spacing and use of connections would build up over time. She stressed that no property ever lose all of their connections; if the next property was unwilling to share access there would have to be defined criteria that would require access in one way or another. Ms. Keppler remarked that one of the best models for access management was in the State of Florida. Mr. Duncan asked how access to arterials and collectors was considered and whether they were deeded. Ms. Keppler replied that the current access points were not permitted. She said at this point they would be allowing all of the access points that were in place. She explained that staff reviewed accesses for safety reasons when they review development and redevelopment projects. Mr. Duncan observed that if the City had not defined what it owned, it would be difficult to determine how to take access. He pointed out that taking an access could create a diminution of value to real estate. Ms. Keppler responded that the City currently has the authority through Chapter 5 to remove any driveway. She underscored that none of the driveways were owned or permitted by the property owners at the access point. Ms. Kneeland asked if staff was mostly thinking of larger scale developments in its discussion of access. Ms. Keppler replied that they were considering all access. She noted that an application had come in for 13th Avenue that indicated a preference for access from the alleyway would be best for the operation of 13th Avenue (a minor arterial). She said it would be helpful to have criteria that explicitly required this, as an example. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 21, 2007 Page 2 Mr. Carroll remarked, regarding the timeline, that four meetings were not very many to “get into the details.” He thought it might be helpful to put all of the materials on the Web site in order to further the public outreach. Ms. Keppler stated that staff had Chapters 5, 7, and 9 and the Arterial Collector Street Plan, along with “some other resources,” to refer to. She brought two of the documents: Ten Ways to Manage Roadway Access in Your Community and Safe Access is Good for Business. She noted that Lane County used the latter. In response to a question from Mr. Carroll regarding the last bullet point, Ms. Keppler clarified that staff was doing the public outreach and coming back to the Department Advisory Committee (DAC) to share what was discussed. She said this would allow the DAC the opportunity to change its recommendation or to confirm it. Mr. Carroll suggested the possibility of having a member of the DAC present at the public input meetings. He also recommended building the possibility of an additional meeting into the timeline. Mr. Belcher inferred from the proposal that the DAC would be the body that determined the recommendation. He suggested adding “not affiliated with the other groups” to the stipulation that two people be selected from the voters’ pool. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Keppler said if a group declined to participate they would be taken off the list. Mr. Hledik asked for examples of standards that discourage cut-through neighborhood travel. Ms. Keppler responded that the biggest example would be to have an efficient network to use rather than allowing drivers to be redirected by congestion to lesser streets. Mr. McNeel averred that having an arterial system with signalized intersections that progress the traffic so that drivers can count on making it through in a certain amount of time discourages driving on the off streets. He pointed out that typically neighborhoods had slower speed limits and more stop signs. Mr. Duncan opined that a lot of people do not understand the magnitude of access management and what exactly it is. He expressed some concern that if a certain mix of people was placed on the DAC that did not have a strong understanding of access management and the plusses and minuses of it, they could end up saying “no all of the time.” He thought Steve Korth would be a good candidate for the DAC. He said it seemed that main corridors would be affected and it did not seem that there were any tenants, landlords, or businesses along those corridors represented on the group. He noted that Mayor Kitty Piercy and Councilor Chris Pryor were sitting on a group that was addressing issues affecting West Eugene and those issues were largely transportation related. He suggested that they approach that group and ask if any members were willing to sit on the DAC. Ms. Gardner remarked that Mr. Korth had been involved in the early Lane Transit District (LTD)/Coburg Road process and though he had been opposed to it he had come up with a voluntary access management plan. She thought “picking his brain” would be valuable. Mr. Duncan said hoped that the end result of this process would not be policy that would hinder infill development. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 21, 2007 Page 3 In response to a question from Ms. Kneeland, Ms. Keppler stated that it would be possible to have more outreach. She said it was the goal to have the DAC create the structure of the ordinance and then take that to the public. She thought if it looked as if there was a lot of interest there could be a larger presentation to the public. She added that they would be using the Web as a resource area and would keep the schedule and activities on line. Mr. Lawless asked what mechanism there would be to have contact with all properties that front on arterials and collectors. Ms. Keppler imagined that this was possible, though it had not been done to date. Ms. Gardner agreed that it would be a good idea to provide those people with notice. Mr. Nystrom commented that it could become difficult to determine where to draw the line when considering who would be affected by access management on arterials. Mr. Duncan observed that most of the organizations on the list published some type of newsletter. He suggested that if staff supplied them with an article it would likely be published. Mr. Hledik wondered how access management affected the Human Rights Commission. He noted that he was not suggesting that the group be removed from the list. Ms. Keppler replied that the Human Rights Commission worked on the behalf of people with disabilities, among others. Mr. Duncan noted he had a similar question in regard to the Friends of the School District. Ms. Keppler explained that they were interested in providing safe routes to schools. Mr. Carroll suggested that staff come up with a “catchy phrase” to describe access management for the public. Mr. Belcher suggested having a representative of shopping mall managers on the DAC. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. Keppler clarified that they would be reviewing arterial and collector streets citywide. She said there would be some impact to the local streets that were adjacent to them and they would be reviewed as well. Mr. Duncan remarked that it seemed that whenever transportation issues that affected local streets were discussed the neighborhoods became alarmed. He thought it might be appropriate to redefine corridors as a street plus “x amount of feet” around it. Mr. Carroll asked if City of Eugene standards applied to development on state-owned highways. Ms. Keppler affirmed that they did but they still had to obtain permits from ODOT. She underscored the importance of the two entities working together in order to ensure ODOT could buy into the results. Mr. Carroll asked if the project would encompass other projects such as the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes. Ms. Keppler responded that it was not the intent to look at access management for BRT specifically or other multiple multi-use corridors. She said the focus was to ensure that there was safe, efficient travel throughout the corridor. Mr. Carroll said he did not want new standards to bump up against other objectives. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 21, 2007 Page 4 Mr. Schoening said in looking at access management for specific corridors they could come up with a list of specific capital projects or operational changes. Mr. Belcher suggested that ‘and redevelopment’ be added to the second bullet point under Key Messages after the word ‘infill.’ Mr. Belcher expressed some concern that a dichotomy was being set up between property owners and the community in the second and third bullet points under Outcomes. He felt the points could be misinterpreted so that property owners would feel that they stood to lose something while the citizens stood to gain something. Mr. Nystrom thought the access management would touch the redevelopment and infill issues. He thought some neighborhoods could perceive it as a tool to prevent infill. Mr. Duncan said they would have to look at the code and determine where the conflicts lay. He did not want neighbors to feel that negative impacts to their neighborhoods were being forced on them. Mr. Belcher said if it was determined that there was value in utilizing alley access as an access management tool he would not hesitate to take that element of it to the City Council. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Ms. Hansen reported that the applicant for the Mckenzie-Willamette plan amendment and zone change would submit rebuttal on May 29 and the record from the public hearing would be closed on that date. Planning Commissioners and staff discussed options for dates for deliberation and arrived at the following schedule: • June 25, 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., if the Walnut Node deliberation was postponed • June 26, 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. • June 27, 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., if June 25 was not used for the plan amendment and zone change deliberation • July 9, 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. • July 12, 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., tentative depending on the progress of deliberation • July 31, 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., tentative depending on the progress of deliberation Mr. Duncan recommended holding a strategy session prior to the deliberation. He thought the commissioners could set goals for each of the deliberations. He reiterated that the commission would need to get through the state goals, the Metro Plan, the Refinement Plan, and the zone change. He felt that “slicing the pie” into smaller pieces would benefit the process. Planning Commissioners tentatively agreed to hold a strategy session on June 18. Mr. Nystrom said as they worked through the deliberations the commission had the discretion to make a more formal recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Hledik asked if the Metro Plan would override the Refinement Plan in the case where the MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 21, 2007 Page 5 Refinement Plan was more specific about a certain policy. Mr. Nystrom responded that the Refinement Plan was a refinement of the Metro Plan. He said in some cases there was a hierarchy that was intended to be that way. He thought the argument could be made that an element of a refinement plan conflicted with the Metro Plan, but it did not necessarily translate to a real conflict. He averred that most of the time one would find that such a policy statement was a refinement of a policy to an area specific issue and was more of a stepping stone. He underscored that the commissioners needed to be careful not to use aspirational statements as points to rely on to base a decision upon. B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Duncan asked for a motion on the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of April 26. Mr. Hledik offered the following correction: • Page 5, paragraph 9: On the third assignment of error, Mr. Hledik inquired about the interpretation of “convenience in convenient open space” and “accessibility by foot, skateboard, bike, etc.” Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to approve the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting held on April 26 as amended. The motion passed, 6:0:1; Mr. McCown abstaining. Continuing with items from the Commission, Mr. Hledik reported that he would be attending the River Road Community Organization (RCCO) with Associate Planner, Patricia Thomas, to discuss infill. Mr. Belcher related that he had attended a meeting of the Amazon Neighbors with Ms. Thomas and Principal Planner, Kurt Yeiter. He said they had done an excellent job of focusing the issue on more than just the negative impacts of infill and opportunity siting. Ms. Gardner noted that Professor Gilham would be speaking on his work on the Razor Park at the meeting of the RCCO. Mr. Carroll observed that the Planning Commission usually met with the City Council in the summer or fall. Ms. Gardner responded that it was not likely to happen prior to September. Mr. Belcher noted that he had informed a member of the public that there could be some discussion of the infill issue at the Planning Commission roundtable discussion. Mr. Nystrom said staff would make a summary of the discussion on the Web page. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:14 p.m. (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 21, 2007 Page 6