Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Special Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall—777 Pearl Street June 26, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Lisa Gardner, Alissa Hansen, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Kathryn Brotherton, Emily Jerome, City Attorney’s Office. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT I. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: MCKENZIE-WILLAMETTE PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGE Staff: Alissa Hansen, 682-5508 Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Carroll, made a tentative motion, subject to change, that the nine transportation facilities identified on Revised Table 2 –Summary of Significantly Affected Transportation Facilities of the June 25, 2007 memorandum previously cited, be those recognized by the Planning Commission as significantly affected by the proposed amendments. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. McCown, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved that mitigations A, B, C, D, and I, met the standards of OAR 660-012-0060(2). Mr. McCown withdrew his motion. Mr. Carroll withdrew his second. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 26, 2007 Page 1  MINUTES Special Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall—777 Pearl Street June 26, 2007 11:00 a.m. PRESENT: PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Lisa Gardner, Alissa Hansen, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Kathryn Brotherton, Emily Jerome, City Attorney’s Office. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Mr. Duncan convened the Planning Commission meeting. He explained the purpose of the meeting was to deliberate on the McKenzie-Willamette Plan Amendments/Zone Change application. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Duncan explained the Public Comment agenda item was inadvertently included in today’s agenda after the commission had previously decided to not include public comment today. He said anyone wishing to speak could do so, but could not comment on anything for which the public record was open or which the commission was deliberating. He noted there was no one wishing to speak. I. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: MCKENZIE-WILLAMETTE PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGE Ms. Hansen offered the staff report. She said the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 24, 2007, on the McKenzie-Willamette Plan Amendments and Zone Change request, that included: a Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Amendment; a Refinement Plan Amendment; and Zone Change for McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center. Mr. McCown arrived at 11:05 a.m. Ms. Hansen referred commissioners to a memorandum dated June 25, 2007 to the Eugene Planning Commission from Alissa Hansen, Subject: Eugene Planning Commission Deliberations on McKenzie-Willamette Plan Amendments/Zone Change (City Files MA 06-1, RA 06-1 & Z 06-8) that was distributed to commissioners on June 25. She distributed a memorandum dated June 26, 2007 to the Eugene Planning Commission from Alissa Hansen, Subject: Eugene Planning Commission Deliberations on McKenzie-Willamette Plan Amendments/Zone Change (City Files MA 06-1, RA 06-1 & Z 06-8). She noted a map entitled Significantly Affected Transportation Facilities & Proposed Mitigations was displayed for view by the audience, copies MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 26, 2007 Page 1 of which had previously been distributed to commission members. Planning Commissioners and staff introduced themselves. Ms. Hansen reviewed the June 25, 2007 memorandum, which contained staff responses to questions regarding Statewide Planning Goal 12 raised by commissioners at their June 25, 2007 meeting. Commissioners discussed Question 1: Which existing or planned facilities are significantly affected by the proposed amendments? Responding to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Hansen said the applicant had not submitted new information. REVISED TABLE 2 –SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES (Revised Table 2) had been created by staff based upon information previously submitted by the applicant. Mr. Carroll stated he found no transportation facilities that would be significantly affected that were not in the applicant’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Ms. Kneeland asserted the bridges over the Willamette River and Beltline Road were somewhat problematic. She asked if there were issues with those bridges not being identified as affected facilities or their lack of capacity affected other parts of the system. Mr. Hledik said the TIA focused on the intersections but much of the opposition testimony and concern came from what happened on other parts of the system. He asked how the bridge over the Willamette River would be addressed. Mr. McNeel said the locations where levels of service (LOS) could be quantified occurred at intersections, which was where bottlenecks generally occurred, rather than along the entire corridor. Theoretically, the number of lanes and the length of a facility created through put on freeways. This particular area contained closely situated interchanges and reacted differently than a typical freeway, adding this situation existed in any congested urban area. The specific mitigation was focused on how to control what happened on the ramps, providing ramp metering to control the input of vehicles entering the facility. This in turn affected how LOS downstream operated. The TIA also provided a number of mitigation techniques that increased the “getaway” capacity on off ramps downstream. There was a component of traffic on both Delta Highway and Beltline Road that was regional in nature. He said this was a statewide facility and the focus of the evaluation was that traffic measurements would occur where vehicles got on and off the facilities, noting this was a standard practice for TIAs throughout the state. Mr. McNeel said the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Statewide Transportation Improvement Program had identified a project to conduct a corridor analysis, and there were visions for improvements to the Beltline Road facility. It had been known for quite come time that the capacity of those bridges was less than desirable. One challenge ODOT encountered was that adding capacity tended to induce more traffic that would not have been there otherwise. With River Avenue and Division Street being close to the Delta Highway interchange, efforts were made to maximize the through put across the bridges given the constraint that capacity would not be increased. The City of Eugene, Lane County, and ODOT had evaluated and agreed upon this tactic, based upon the assumption that six or more lanes would not cross the river. Responding to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. McNeel said some funding had been identified for Project 638. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 26, 2007 Page 2 Ms. Hansen added that Project 638 needed to be considered because it was on the financially constrained list in the regional transportation plan, adding that funding for a study of the Beltline cooridor had been identified, but projects had not yet been identified. Responding to a question from Ms. Kneeland, Mr. McNeel said work on the bridges was not being considered because the total amount of traffic using the bridges was relatively small. Increasing bridge capacity was considered during the TIA, to ensure that the analysis of City of Eugene, Lane County, and ODOT staff was captured. Responding to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. McNeel said this was a complex site because transportation facilities from multiple jurisdictions were impacted. Lane County had jurisdictional authority for Delta Highway south of Green Acres Road, but the ramps themselves were controlled by ODOT, because ODOT mandated that they maintain control of all ramp facilities that entered or exited ODOT’s facilities to ensure that the actions of other agencies did not interfere with the operation of ODOT facilities. Thus, ODOT controlled all of the ramps associated with Delta Highway, although they technically belonged to Lane County. The City of Eugene had almost no jurisdiction with any interchange areas, although it had jurisdiction for Delta Highway north of Green Acres Road, as well as River Avenue, a section of Division Street, River Road, and Ayres Road. Additionally, the City of Eugene scoped the Gilham Road and Ayres Road intersection, as well as Gilham Road and Crescent Avenue, knowing they would likely be affected by traffic to and from the medical facility. Responding to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. McNeel said the applicant completed three iterations of the analysis, noting the early ones had quite a bit of disagreement with what the agencies wanted. There were pressures put on the applicant to look at additional information, including a request by Lane County to look at merge/diverge conditions in the Valley River Center area, which had not been in the original scoping. These additional requirements were placed upon the applicant to ensure the work was adequate to meet the agencies’ standards. He added that the TIA addressed all of the intersections requested by the agencies. Responding to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. McNeel said the TIA adequately addressed the concerns raised by residents regarding entering and exiting their property due to traffic backed up on North Delta Highway. He added queuing analyses were done on all of the significant locations identified by the residents and the evaluations indicated the roads would function adequately. He referred to the May 8 and June 11, 2007 staff responses to commissioners’ questions. Responding to a question from Mr. Carroll, Mr. McNeel said the operation of the turning maneuvers to exit and enter Lake Ridge Estates was addressed with signalized intersections, which meant when Delta Highway and Ayres Road were signalized, with a median and left turn lane, gaps would be created that were not there now, allowing cars to enter the median for a left turn. He added that signal timing and coordination design work had not yet been done. However, the applicant had been advised that any traffic signaling would need to be connected to the City’s computerized signal operation center, and the City would develop timing plans and coordinate them to reduce delays and create a smooth operation. Responding to Mr. Hledik about questions raised in a May 22, 2007 memorandum regarding the credibility of the modeling from the North Delta Neighbors, Mr. McNeel said he would check on the issues and get back to commissioners at a later time. Mr. McNeel added the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) model was based upon 2025 assumptions which included roadways that were not yet built. The modeling could take into account shortcuts that were used on collector MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 26, 2007 Page 3 roads. Additionally, the collector street plan adopted in 1999 was not in place when the Willakenzie Area Refinement Plan was completed. Responding to a question from Mr. Carroll, Mr. McNeel said none of the locally funded facilities were included in the model. Responding to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. McNeel said traffic counts from the time the application was submitted were used. He said the three agencies reviewed the information and did not see the need to apply seasonal adjustments to the traffic counts. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. McNeel said volume to capacity ratios diverted from Delta Highway and Beltline Road by the now defunct West Eugene Parkway had not been recalculated because the volumes were insignificant based upon hourly equivalents. Responding to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. McNeel said two year life spans for traffic counts for TIAs was a standard practice throughout the state. He said every agency in the state used Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) records for crash data, which consisted of a manual sort that had a twelve to eighteen month delay. He said the first TIA iteration used 2002-2004 data, while the second iteration used 2005 updated data. He added there had not been much growth in the area, and the data was still considered valid. Mr. McNeel confirmed the traffic count data was current. He said it was difficult to evaluate how a private party or neighbors would conduct counts, noting there were many unknown factors. The applicant hired a professional count organization to conduct classification and manual counts, by observation, using the same method, times and locations. He explained how peak hour counts were conducted and that both truck and car counts were taken into consideration. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. McNeel explained that ODOT used the Highway Design Manual for new construction and the Oregon Highway Plan, a set of standards used for retrofit on existing facilities. Those standards were extremely strict, and many interchange areas around the state did not comply with the new standards. If Beltline Road was rebuilt today, Division Avenue and River Avenue would not likely have ramps because they did not meet the current standards. However, it was possible to modify the Beltline Road facility and keep those ramps in place. Responding to a question from Ms. Kneeland, Mr. McNeel said the Kittleson equation, which was a mechanism to capture more realistical data related to a hospital co-located with a medical facility, was used at ODOT’s suggestion. He said Saturday retail traffic was not deemed relevant due to the high volume of local traffic present on weekdays but not on weekends. He added the peak periods for the hospital tended to be smaller than the peak periods for the medical office complex, in that the medical office complex generated more intense trip generation counts than a hospital. Responding to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. McNeel explained the ramp metering system would not be activated during free flow conditions, noting the merge area in ODOT tables was for a free flow, 55 m.p.h. operating speed. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. McNeel said the conditions being mitigated at the Delta Highway and Beltline Road off and on ramps were evaluated differently than if a new facility was built. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 26, 2007 Page 4 Mr. Belcher expressed concern for the limited amount of office space included in the application. Mr. McNeel said this applicant had initiated a cap on the amount of square footage applied for, and the trip generation was based upon that cap. He noted there was little additional medical office space at the current McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center location, while the new Peace Health Medical Center was somewhat isolated. Ms. Hansen added traffic impacts would be evaluated if and when additional office space beyond that proposed at this time was requested. She added that the applicant had requested and staff had recommended establishing a cap on the number of trips that would be generated by the medical office space. Any changes due to expansion in the area would require the applicant to go through the full amendment and zone change process. Mr. McNeel said the TIA was based upon the full build out of the hospital, with 198 beds. Mr. Nystrom said there were other triggers in the land use code that addressed TIA requirements for more modest projects that would cause review by the Planning Commission. Mr. Duncan said the River Bend Master Plan included planned uses that were not medically related. Responding to a question from Ms. Kneeland, Mr. McNeel said granting a conditional approval was a standard ODOT practice that reserved the right to further look at projects as they became more refined. The concern with the McKenzie-Willamette project was there were several mitigation proposals that were still very conceptual. ODOT wanted to have the flexibility to render decisions based upon completely designed mitigation proposals. Responding to a question from Ms. Jerome, Mr. McNeel concurred that ODOT would require a technical review to ensure ODOT standards would be met before permits would be issued for construction. Responding to a question from Ms. Kneeland, Mr. McNeel said the Privately Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) Process often conditioned approvals, and explained how the process could be used with this project. He opined ODOT had not foreseen drastic changes to the proposal, and it had not been part of any discussions with ODOT. Refinement of the current mitigation package could occur, and ODOT wanted to reserve the right of review of the construction drawings. Responding to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. Jerome said staff would provide information for the record regarding ODOT’s understanding of the City’s intent. Responding to a question from Mr. Lawless, Mr. McNeel said ODOT held the “trump card”, having total authority to approve or disapprove any changes in the scope of work and scope of mitigation measures that impacted ODOT facilities. Action by the Planning Commission could give the applicant authorization to apply to ODOT, but did not guarantee that an approval would be forthcoming. Responding to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. Jerome said when the City made a decision and imposed certain requirements, if ODOT’s requirements were less, the City of Eugene requirements must be met. ODOT could also require more than the City. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Carroll, made a tentative motion, subject to change, MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 26, 2007 Page 5  that the nine transportation facilities identified on Revised Table 2 –Summary of Significantly Affected Transportation Facilities of the June 25, 2007 memorandum previously cited, be those recognized by the Planning Commission as significantly affected by the proposed amendments. Responding to a question from Ms. Kneeland, Mr. McNeel confirmed that ODOT would not undertake widening of the Willamette River bridge at this time because the corridor analysis had not been completed. This could have negative consequences, likely resulting in elimination of the River Avenue and Division Avenue ramps, which would be a huge impact to the River Road interchange, as well as to what would happen at Delta Highway, the gravel companies and rock crushing plant. He added the three agencies deemed the appropriate approach would be to focus on the operational characteristics of either side of the bridge. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The Planning Commission took a lunch break from 12:25 p.m. to 12:50 p.m. Commissioners discussed Question 2: Do the proposed mitigations (transportation improvements) improve the anticipated v/c or level of service of the significantly affected transportation facilities to an acceptable performance standard, consistent with OAR 660-012- 0060(2)? Responding to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. McNeel explained that the ramp meters did not require perpetual manual monitoring, instead operated with a microcomputer, programmed in the same manner as a traffic signal. Although the details had not yet been worked out, the meters could be centrally monitored in much the same manner as ODOT monitored Region 1 in the Portland metropolitan area, through a centrally operated, electronic system. Referring to Revised Table 2, Mr. Carroll said he agreed with the staff assessment. A discussion of the Revised Table 2 and Table 17 on page A-67 in the notebook previously distributed to commissioners ensued. Mr. McCown, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved that mitigations A, B, C, D, and I, met the standards of OAR 660-012-0060(2). Ms. Kneeland expressed reservations regarding several proposed mitigations related to merging in the TIA. Mr. Hledik opined the commission needed to hold a vote on the issue until concerns regarding the queuing storage were answered. Ms. Kneeland added merging issues needed to be further addressed. Mr. McCown withdrew motion. Mr. Carroll withdrew his second. Mr. Duncan noted consensus to direct staff to research the identified issues, and move on to Question 3. Commissioners discussed Question 3: If the proposed mitigations are not consistent with OAR 660-012-0060(2), are they consistent with OAR 660-012-0060(3)? MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 26, 2007 Page 6 Responding to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. McNeel said although it was possible to widen North Delta Highway to two lanes northbound and two lanes southbound, projected volumes for 2025 did not exceed the capacity of three lanes (one lane northbound, one land southbound, with a common left turn median). He added a five lane section would make movements from side roads from Lake Ridge Estates and others, more difficult. Mr. McNeel added that the proposed traffic signal design would require some island changes at Delta Highway and Ayres Road. As noted in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) in today’s agenda packet, there were no plans to make changes to Ayres Road. Responding to a question from Mr. Lawless, Mr. McNeel said ODOT was accepting ramp metering as a strategy to mitigate volume to capacity issues identified in Revised Table 2. He added metering smoothed out the traffic flow from access ramps to the freeway, making merges more controlled, and eliminating the shockwave resulting from coming to a complete stop prior to merging on the freeway. Responding to a question from Mr. Lawless regarding degradation of traffic flow at facilities E, F, and H on Revised Table 2, Ms. Jerome said the issue was a matter of further degradation, and the information contained in Revised Table 2 offered useful tools to help commissioners make decisions. Responding to a question from Ms. Kneeland, Mr. McNeel said ODOT was looking at ramp metering as an appropriate mitigation strategy of current impacts on the entire corridor until such time as the planned corridor study identified other appropriate mitigation strategies and improvements needed for the Beltline Highway. Responding to a question from Mr. Carroll, Ms. Brotherton understood if the amendments were approved for 2010 as the year the McKenzie-Willamette project would be completed, transportation facility improvements would need to be completed by that date, regardless of whether the McKenzie-Willamette project completion date was beyond 2010. Ms. Hansen confirmed that completion of transportation facility improvements could be conditioned in the Planning Commission recommendation. Responding to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. McNeel said if the corridor study identified additional improvements, they would become part of the regional transportation plan, confirming that the proposed McKenzie-Willamette development could not be asked to pay for the cost of future work identified through the corridor study. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Hansen said ramp metering data looked at travel time and average speed. She said a six second degradation in travel time as indicated on Revised Table 2 was not considered a further degradation by ODOT. Responding to a question from Mr. Carroll, Ms. Hansen confirmed that the burden of funding mitigations was the applicant’s. She added that the applicant had proposed paying for all of the mitigations. Ms. Hansen and commissioners reviewed follow-up issues and the agenda for the June 27, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Jerome expressed her appreciation to Mr. McNeel for his support on this project. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 26, 2007 Page 7 Mr. Hledik thanked staff for their work on the project. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff There were no other items from staff. B. Other Items from Commission There were no other items from commissioners. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 2:00 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2007\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc70626.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 26, 2007 Page 8