Planning Commission
Regular MeetingEugene, OR · January 25, 2010
Minutes
SUMMARY MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue
January 25, 2010
11:30 a.m.
PRESENT: Heidi Beierle, Chair; Jeffery Mills, Vice Chair; Jonathan Belcher, Randy Hledik, William
Randall, Lisa Warnes, members; Lisa Gardner, Susan Muir, Planning and Development
Department; Gary McNeel, Mark Schoening, Public Works Department.
ABSENT: Rick Duncan, member.
I. PUBLIC COMMENT
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—September 14 and October 12, 2009
Deferred to a future meeting.
III. EUGENE DEVELOPMENT UPDATE
Susan Muir, 541-682-5243
IV. ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PAVING WIDTH STANDARDS
Mark Schoening, 541-682-5243
Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved that the Planning
Commission recommend adoption of Option 3, as presented in the
Agenda Item Summary (AIS). The motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
B. Other Items from Commission
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 25, 2010 Page 1
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue
January 25, 2010
11:30 a.m.
PRESENT: Heidi Beierle, Chair; Jeffery Mills, Vice Chair; Jonathan Belcher, Randy Hledik, William
Randall, Lisa Warnes, members; Lisa Gardner, Susan Muir, Planning and Development
Department; Gary McNeel, Mark Schoening, Public Works Department.
ABSENT: Rick Duncan, member.
I. PUBLIC COMMENT
Paul Conte, 1461 West Tenth Avenue, thanked the Planning Commission for its work on the SWJ
Special Area zone, which the City Council approved 8:0.
Mr. Belcher arrived at 11:34 a.m.
Mr. Conte, representing the Board of the JWN, stated the board’s official position on the alley right-of-
way and paving width standards was that the standards should not be changed in a neighborhood area
until the community had been engaged in the discussion. Neither the board nor the neighborhood had yet
taken a position, either pro or con on the proposal, and there had been no community engagement on
substantive issues. He noted there were process and substantive flaws in the code that the Planning
Commission recommended to City Council which he thought would likely result in an appeal to the Land
Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—September 14 and October 12, 2009
Deferred to a future meeting.
III. EUGENE DEVELOPMENT UPDATE
Ms. Muir offered a PowerPoint presentation entitled Economic Development Update, City of Eugene
Planning Commission, January 25, 2010. A handout containing the presentation was distributed to
commissioners.
In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Muir explained the passage of Ballot Measures 66/67 on
the January 26, 2010 election would impact the City in some ways. The City Council would likely discuss
the election results at the council’s January 28, 2010 meeting if the measures passed.
Mr. Belcher asked if there was an end in sight to the rising Public Employees Retirement System (PERS)
costs.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 25, 2010 Page 2
Ms. Muir had only heard it would not get better from budget staff.
Mr. Hledik asked if the commission would be seeing the Beam, Lane Community College (LCC), the
Veterans’ Administration (VA) hospital, or other projects in the future.
Ms. Muir stated if the proposed urban renewal plan amendment was a part of the financing package, the
issue would be brought to the Planning Commission. She added the City Council had been clear that any
barriers to the VA project would be removed as quickly as possible.
Mr. Belcher stated there was concern in the community related to the Marine/Navy site, noting people had
been waiting a long time for the site to become available. He opined simply selling it and giving a
developer carte blanch permission to develop the site would not go without comment from the
community. He added the Agripac site by the federal court house had an historic designation.
Ms. Muir asserted there was nothing on the table that suggested the site would be sold to a developer
“willy nilly.” She anticipated the council would review the site before any action took place. Related to
the Agripac site, she said there was a structure on the site that had significance as the original office. It
would be preferred that the structure be preserved or recreated in any future development scenario.
IV. ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PAVING WIDTH STANDARDS
Mr. Schoening offered the staff report. The alley right-of-way and paving width standards was raised
during the access management discussions that focused on balancing the safety and mobility on the
transportation system with access to property which commenced several years ago. This project provided
an opportunity to amend four other sections of the land use code related to transportation one of which
was street and alley right-of-way. He reviewed existing code language and the review process used by
the City Council, Planning Commission, neighborhood organizations and the public. In an October 29,
2009 memorandum to the Neighborhood Leaders’ Council (NLC) staff solicited input from neighborhood
groups on the proposed changes to the land use code. The only neighborhood association to respond was
Jefferson Westside (JWN). Staff met with JWN representatives on several occasions but an agreement on
the scope of the process or level of public participation between the JWN and the City could not be
reached.
Responding to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Schoening said the proposal had not gone formally to the JWN board but
he thought they were comfortable with the staff recommendation.
Mr. Conte stated the proposed changes addressed the board’s desire to have any changes in the standards
go through a public process.
Mr. Schoening stated staff was not proposing changes to the applicable refinement plan at this time, but
suggested changes could be incorporated into a future refinement plan revision process.
Mr. Belcher said a new refinement plan had not been developed in fifteen years. He noted several
neighborhoods had alley issues and he found it strange to deal with the issue on a piecemeal basis.
Ms. Gardner added that looking comprehensively at alleys would make sense if financial resources were
not an issue. However, in the current economic climate, the City would be attempting to utilize resources
as efficiently as possible. It was highly unlikely a city-wide alley standard would be developed in the
near future based on those resources.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 25, 2010 Page 3
Mr. Schoening stated staff had developed options that would be presented to the City Council:
1. Adopt the right-of-way and paving width standards with amendments to Eugene Code (EC) Table
9.6870 as presented to the Planning Commission on July 13, 2009.
2. Adopt amendments to EC 9.6870 to (a) change the required street width for a street that was not
designated on the Street Right-of-Way map from the maximum width for the street’s type to the
minimum width for that street’s type.
3. Adopt changes in EC 9.8670 Street Width Standards that would change the street right-of-way
and paving standards while maintaining the alley right-of-way and paving standards. EC Table
would remain unchanged.
Mr. Schoening stated staff would recommend that the City Council adopt changes in EC 9.8670 Street
Width Standards that would change the street right-of-way and paving standards while maintaining the
alley right-of-way and paving standards. EC Table 9.6870 would remain unchanged.
Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved that the Planning
Commission recommend adoption of Option 3, as presented in the
Agenda Item Summary (AIS).
Mr. Randall opined the motion made sense, particularly if the original motion was made without
sufficient public input and proper public notice.
Ms. Warnes did not know enough about the issue to take a position and wanted to have more input from
the neighborhood.
Ms. Gardner clarified that the neighborhood association had expressed that it was not content how it had
previously been moving forward, but would be content with the current process.
Mr. Conte affirmed the neighborhood association would support the motion.
Ms. Beierle said she would support the motion.
The motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
Ms. Gardner reviewed the upcoming City Council schedule for access management, February 8 and 16,
and downtown projects January 27, and January 10 and 17. Additionally, there was a Lane Transit
District (LTD) meeting scheduled for service reductions on February 17.
Ms. Gardner said council had directed staff to complete the Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment
(ECLA) process by April 2010. Additionally, the buildable lands assessment required by Ballot Measure
H.B. 3337 was met in December 2009. Council had directed staff to have completed the urban growth
boundary (UGB) land determination by February 2011. Staff was also looking at a Eugene only
comprehensive plan. She reviewed the commission’s schedule for reviewing these documents. She
stated planning staffing would likely be reduced through budget cuts and staff were attempting to develop
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 25, 2010 Page 4
timelines to enable staff and the commission to meet the deadlines before them. She said light snacks had
been added to commission meetings.
B. Other Items from Commission
Mr. Belcher opined the public involvement process could be improved if the public was provided clear
information at the beginning of processes on how the public’s input would be used, what its role would be
and how much flexibility the process could accommodate.
In response to Mr. Hledik, Ms. Gardner agreed to follow up on State ethics reporting requirements for
commissioners. She stated staff were waiting to hear back from all commissioners before making a
decision on the American Planning Association (APA) membership.
Responding to Mr. Belcher, Ms. Gardner stated all e-mail messages sent and received on the City’s e-mail
system were archived and saved. He requested that the triple bottom line tool be on the agenda for the
joint meeting with the Sustainability Commission on February 8, 2010.
Ms. Beierle said she was in contact with the chair of the Sustainability Commission and they were
discussing ways for the Sustainability and Planning Commissions to stay more connected, including the
possibility of “buddies” as with the City Council. She added she was working on council buddies.
Ms. Beierle adjourned the meeting at 1:00 p.m.
(Recorded by Linda Henry)
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 25, 2010 Page 5
Agenda
AGENDA
EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION
Phone: 541‐682‐5481 Atrium Building, Sloat Room, 99 West 10th Avenue
www.eugene‐or.gov/pc Eugene, OR 97401
The Eugene Planning Commission welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as
you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair‐accessible. For the hearing impaired,
FM assistive‐listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours notice prior to the
meeting. Spanish‐language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours notice. To arrange for these
services, contact the receptionist at 541‐682‐5481. Telecommunications devices for deaf assistance are
available at 541‐682‐5119.
MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2010 – REGULAR MEETING (11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
11:30 a.m. I. PUBLIC COMMENT
The Planning Commission reserves 10 minutes at the beginning of this meeting for public
comment. The public may comment on any matter, except for items scheduled for public
hearing or public hearing items for which the record has already closed. Generally, the
time limit for public comment is three minutes; however, the Planning Commission reserves
the option to reduce the time allowed each speaker based on the number of people
requesting to speak.
11:40 a.m. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of September 14 and October 12, 2009
11:45 a.m. III. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UPDATE
Staff: Susan Muir, Planning and Development Director, 541‐682‐5086
12:15 a.m. IV. ALLEY RIGHT‐OF‐WAY AND PAVING WIDTH STANDARDS
Staff: Mark Schoening, City Engineer, 541‐682‐5243
1:15 p.m. V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
B. Other Items from Commission
Commissioners: Heidi Beierle, Chair; Jonathan Belcher; Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik,
Jeffery Mills, Vice Chair; William Randall; Lisa Warnes
PC AIS, p 1
PC AIS, p 2
Public Works
Engineering
City of Eugene
99 E Broadway, Suite 400
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5291
(541) 682-5032 FAX
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Date: January 25, 2010
To: Eugene Planning Commission
From: Mark Schoening, City Engineer
Public Works Engineering
Subject: Alley Right-of-Way and Paving Width Standards
No action is being requested of the Planning Commission. The purpose of this agenda item is to brief
the Planning Commission on what has happened subsequent to the Planning Commission
recommendation on alley right-of-way and paving width standards on October 12, 2009 and to inform
the Planning Commission of the intended staff recommendation to the City Council on alley right-of-
way and paving widths. The staff recommendation to the City Council will be to maintain the existing
alley right-of-way and paving width standards. This recommendation is different than the Planning
Commission’s recommendation to amend the alley right-of-way and paving width standards. The
current code, the Planning Commission recommended revisions and the intended staff recommended
revisions are shown on Attachment 1.
On July 13, 2009 the Planning Commission held a work session on access management and four
transportation related changes to the land use code. One of the transportation related changes to the land
use code was the street and alley right-of-way and paving width standards in EC 9.6870. Subsequent to
the Planning Commission work session City staff met with representatives of the Jefferson Westside
Neighbors (JWN) to listen to the concerns of the JWN regarding the proposed land use code changes.
In a memo to the Planning Commission dated August 21, 2009 City staff stated that as a result of the
issues raised by the JWN the proposed Eugene Code amendments for alley right-of-way and paving
width standards would not be included in the Eugene Code amendments subject to a public hearing
before the Planning Commission on August 29, 2009. Attached to the memo was a letter dated July 22,
2009 from the chair of JWN outlining the concerns associated with the proposed changes to the alley
right-of-way and paving width standards.
On August 25, 2009 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed land use code
amendments on access management. Several individuals submitted testimony supporting the change to
alley right-of-way and paving width standards even though the changes were not included in the
proposed land use code amendments subject to the public hearing.
PC AIS, p 3
Planning Commission
Alley Width Standards
January 25, 2010
Page 2
On October 12, 2009 the Planning Commission approved the recommendation to the City Council to
adopt the amendments to EC Chapters 7 and 9 regarding access management. In addition, the Planning
Commission approved the following motion regarding alley right-of-way and paving width standards –
Move to recommend that the City Council adopt the alley width amendments to EC Table 9.6870
that were provided in the Planning Commission’s July 13, 2009 agenda packet.
In a memo dated October 29, 2009 from City staff to the Neighborhood Leaders Council input was
solicited from neighborhood groups on the proposed changes to the land use code regarding alley right-
of-way and paving width standards. The goal of this outreach effort was to be able to provide the City
Council with an understanding of the neighborhood issues associated with alley right-of-way and paving
width standards when the Council considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission in early
2010.
The only neighborhood association that responded to the staff memo was JWN. City staff met with
representatives of JWN on several occasions to discuss a community process for alley right-of-way and
paving width standards. However, an agreement between JWN and the City could not be reached on the
scope of the process or the level of public participation.
The options that will be presented to the City Council include:
1. Adopt the alley right-of-way and paving width standards with amendments to EC Table 9.6870
as presented to the Planning Commission on July 13, 2009. This is the recommendation of the
Planning Commission from October 12, 2009.
2. Adopt amendments to EC 9.6870 to (a) change the required street width for a street that is not
designated on the Street Right-of-Way map from the maximum width for the street’s type to the
minimum width for that street’s type. This is the amendment that was the subject of the public
hearing before the Planning Commission on August 25, 2009. This course of action becomes
problematic because the discretion of the Planning Director and Public Works Director in land
use applications would only allow an increase in alley right-of-way and paving width standards
shown in EC Table 9.6870.
3. Adopt changes in EC 9.8670 Street Width Standards that would change the street right-of-way
and paving standards while maintaining the alley right-of-way and paving standards. EC Table
9.6870 would remain unchanged.
City staff intends to recommend to the City Council to adopt changes in EC 9.8670 Street Width
Standards that would change the street right-of-way and paving standards while maintaining the alley
right-of-way and paving standards. EC Table 9.6870 would remain unchanged.
Attachment
PC AIS, p 4
Attachment 1
Current Code:
9.6870 Street Width. Unless an alternative width is approved through use of other procedures in
this code, the right-of-way width and paving width of streets and alleys dedicated shall
conform to those designated on the adopted Street Right-of-Way map. When a street
segment right-of-way width is not designated on the Street Right-of-Way map, the required
street width shall be the maximum shown for its type in Table 9.6870 Right-of-Way and
Paving Widths unless a lesser width is approved by the planning director and public works
director based on adopted plans and policies, adopted “Design Standards and Guidelines for
Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Accessways,” or other factors which, in the
judgment of the planning and public works director allow for a lesser street width.
Planning Commission Recommended Revisions:
9.6870 Street Width. Unless an alternative width is approved through use of other procedures in
this code, the right-of-way width and paving width of streets and alleys dedicated shall
conform to those designated on the adopted Street Right-of-Way map. When a street
segment right-of-way width is not designated on the Street Right-of-Way map, the required
street width shall be the [maximum] minimum width shown for its type in Table 9.6870
Right-of-Way and Paving Widths. [unless a lesser width is approved by the planning director
and public works director b] Based on adopted plans and policies, adopted “Design
Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Accessways,” or
other factors which, in the judgment of the planning and public works director [allow for a
lesser] necessitate a greater street width, a right-of-way width greater than the
minimum width shown for its type in Table 9.6870 can be required for applications
submitted in accordance with EC 9.8090, 9.8055, 9.8215, 9.8320, 9.8440 or 9.8515.
Table 9.6870 Right-of-Way and Paving Widths
Type of Street or Alley Right-of-Way Paving Width
(for Public Streets and Alleys only)
Major Arterials 100’ – 120’ 68’ – 94’
Minor Arterials 65’ – 100’ 46’ 70’
Major Collector 60’ – 75’ 32’ – 44’
Neighborhood Collector 40’ 55’ 20’ – 43’
Bicycle and Pedestrian Accessway:
With Fire Accessibility 20’ 20’
Without Fire Accessibility 10’ 10’
Local Streets
Alley [(secondary access) only] 14’-20’ 12’-20’
[Alley (primary access) 20’ 12’ one-way travel
20’ two-way travel]
Access Lane 40’ – 55’ 21’ – 28’
Low Volume Residential 45’ – 55’ 20’ – 28’
Medium Volume Residential 50’ – 60’ 20’ – 34’
Commercial and Industrial 55’ – 70’ 30’ – 44’
Cul-de-sac Bulb Radius:
Residential 48.5’’ 35’
Non-residential 62’ 50’
*Measured from face to face of curbs
PC AIS, p 5
Intended Staff Recommended Revision (keeps alley widths as they are today under current code
and eliminates separate alley ordinance).
9.6870 Street Width. Unless an alternative width is approved through use of other procedures in
this code, the right-of-way width and paving width of streets and alleys dedicated shall
conform to those designated on the adopted Street Right-of-Way map. When a street
segment right-of-way width is not designated on the Street Right-of-Way map, the required
street width shall be the [maximum] minimum width shown for its type in Table 9.6870
Right-of-Way and Paving Widths. [unless a lesser width is approved by the planning director
and public works director b] Based on adopted plans and policies, adopted “Design
Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Accessways,” or
other factors which, in the judgment of the planning and public works director [allow for a
lesser] necessitate a greater street width, a right-of-way width greater than the
minimum width shown for its type in Table 9.6870 can be required for applications
submitted in accordance with EC 9.8090, 9.8055, 9.8215, 9.8320, 9.8440 or 9.8515. The
required alley width shall be the width shown for its type in Table 9.6870 Right-of-Way
and Paving Width, unless, for applications submitted in accordance with EC 9.8090,
9.8055, 9.8215, 9.8320, 9.8440 or 9.8515, a lesser width is approved by the planning
director and public works director based on adopted plans and policies, adopted
“Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways, and
Accessways,” or other factors which, in the judgment of the planning and public
works director allow for a lesser alley width.
....
[No revisions to Table 9.6870]
PC AIS, p 6
Get email alerts for Eugene
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.