PC Meeting 05/25/05

ITEM NO 14:            COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT – CHAPTER 8 – TRANSPORTATION (WBH)

 

Hold public hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to Chapter 8 – Transportation.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Ahrens explained the Planning Commission initiated this proposed amendment based on the recommendation of the CPC that the Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan be updated to reflect the content of the current long-range transportation plan, Transportation 2025. 

 

A number of formatting errors were noted at the Study Session and a revised draft of the chapter was provided in tonight’s communications making these changes.  Two text changes in Policy 6.4d and 6.1b were not included in the revised version, but proposed revisions were presented by Staff.

 

Staff recommended approval of the chapter as revised.

 

Riordan said the proposed new wording of Policy 6.1b did not address the concerns he expressed at the Study Session.  It was discussed that areas of high density were more conducive to public transportation and pedestrian/bicycle activity.  Riordan said his concern was that the text, as written, appeared to encourage maximum capacity development along arterials, which was not a sound planning principle.

 

Burress referenced the question raised by the League of Women Voters about connector streets – direct but non-major roads that would allow internal travel between points in the neighborhood.  It was discussed that the term “residential collector” was defined in Transportation 2025 but was not used anywhere else in the document.  This term was replaced in the proposed chapter with a definition for “connector street” but this term was still not referenced elsewhere in the proposed chapter.  Burress suggested adding policies that used the term “connector street” to explain their use and function within neighborhoods.

 

Haase suggested more specific language should be added to the definition of “residential collector”, stating that one function of these streets is to provide a transportation corridor to special destinations on the perimeter of the neighborhood.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

Alan Black spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters, reading into the record a written statement outlining the League’s concerns (See file for hard copy).  Primary points of the League’s communication were:

• Multi-modal transportation systems must be supported by neighborhood design;
• Advance planning of neighborhoods with reserved areas for non-residential uses is essential, so that the internal street systems can route traffic, including pedestrian and bicycle, to these activity areas within each neighborhood rather than forcing it onto arterials; and
• The concept and definition of connector streets is already in HORIZON 2020 and should be utilized to accomplish this.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

The Commission discussed whether the changes being considered could be finalized at tonight’s meeting, or if the chapter would need to be returned to the CPC. 

 

Ms. Finger pointed out that the intent of the proposed chapter was to implement the concepts that were already adopted in Transportation 2025.  She suggested that some of the changes being discussed strayed from that intent and would leave the two documents (HORIZON 2020 and Transportation 2025) still out of sync.  It was discussed that the Commission could approve the chapter as presented and keep the issues raised in mind for their long-range transportation plan update, which was due to begin in the near future.

 

It was discussed that Transportation 2025 contained a map showing three potential east-west arterials north of 6^th Street, as approved by the Planning Commission acting in their capacity as the MPO.  However, this map did not match the Major Thoroughfares Map in HORIZON 2020, because the City Commission had the final authority over the MTM and had chosen not to show the three potential arterials.

 

Haase said he would like to include an amendment to the map in the proposed chapter designating a corridor extending from existing Peterson Road to connect with Highway 40 at approximately E700 Road.  He said he would further like to see in the plan a potential major arterial extending the full length of the described corridor.  Haase said the problem of providing an east-west connection in this area was a prime example of why it is ideal to look at environmental constraints before planning transportation networks.

 

The Commission discussed whether it was more appropriate to approve the chapter as presented to achieve conformance between two planning documents, or if it the issues raised were significant enough to warrant immediate attention.  Lawson pointed out that an update to the long-range transportation plan would provide an opportunity to consider all of the concerns and comments made regarding this chapter.  Ms. Finger said it would take 18-24 months to complete the transportation plan updates and the Commission could then initiate chapter revisions to maintain conformity between the chapter and the transportation plan.

 

Krebs countered that, since the update would take about 2 years to get into place, it would be worthwhile to improve the current chapter for use in the meantime.  She added that not using the testimony given in the public hearing was not a good use of feedback.

 

It was noted that Goal 6 from the original chapter was inadvertently left out of the proposed chapter.

 

Ms. Finger stated that the map change suggested by Haase could be incorporated into the chapter without returning the documents to the CPC.  However, the addition of policy statements about residential collectors as suggested by Burress would require subcommittee review.  The chapter would then need to return in the summer or fall, since the June agenda was already quite full.  It was verified that the chapter could be acted upon at a Monday meeting but action on this issue at Mid-Month meeting would be inappropriate because Mid-Months were not publicized as a time for consideration of public hearing items.

 

There was additional discussion about changing the chapter map as described by Haase.  It was asked if this was an appropriate change to make tonight.  Haase stated it was essential to protect the ability to build a road if it is needed in future.  He said the “line on the map” could be removed if it was found to be too impractical at a later date.  It was commented that this alignment was already impractical.  Haase responded that an east-west connection was needed and this alignment was less impractical than other options. 

 

Krebs noted that the chapter policies did not always appear to address the goals they were listed with.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Riordan, seconded by Burress to refer Chapter 8 (Transportation) of HORIZON 2020 back to the Comprehensive Plans Committee with direction to review the following suggestions for inclusion in the chapter:

1. Extension of Peterson Road to align with Highway 40 and connect to Stull Road;
2. Creation of policy statements regarding the use of residential collector streets;
3. Incorporation where appropriate of the comments received from the League of Women Voters;
4. Replace the words “maximize density” in Policy 6.1b to “encourage increased density”; and
5. Renaming of goals and reorganization of policy sections.

 

Motion carried 7-2, with Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Krebs and Riordan voting in favor.  Jennings and Lawson voted in opposition.