AGENDA Meeting Location: Sloat Room—Atrium Building Phone: 541-682-5481 99 W. 10 th 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 hour notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hour notice. To arrange for these services, contact the Planning Division at 541-682-5675. MONDAY, JULY 6, 2015 – REGULAR MEETING (11:30 a.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. SOUTH WILLAMETTE SPECIAL AREA ZONE – DELIBERATIONS/ACTION Planning Commission will continue its deliberations and possibly take action on the proposed adoption package to implement the South Willamette Special Area Zone. Lead City Staff: Gabe Flock, 541-682-5697 [email protected]1:15 p.m. III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission C. Learning: How are we doing? Commissioners: Steven Baker; John Barofsky; John Jaworski (Vice-Chair); Jeffrey Mills; Kristen Taylor; William Randall (Chair); Breanna Nicolello
Transcript
AGENDA Meeting Location: Sloat Room—Atrium Building Phone: 541-682-5481 99 W. 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 hour notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hour notice. To arrange for these services, contact the Planning Division at 541-682-5675.
MONDAY, JULY 6, 2015 – REGULAR MEETING (11:30 a.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. SOUTH WILLAMETTE SPECIAL AREA ZONE – DELIBERATIONS/ACTION Planning Commission will continue its deliberations and possibly take action
on the proposed adoption package to implement the South Willamette Special Area Zone.
Lead City Staff: Gabe Flock, 541-682-5697 [email protected] 1:15 p.m. III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission C. Learning: How are we doing? Commissioners: Steven Baker; John Barofsky; John Jaworski (Vice-Chair); Jeffrey Mills; Kristen
Taylor; William Randall (Chair); Breanna Nicolello
To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Gabe Flock, Jennifer Knapp & Will Dowdy, City of Eugene Planning Division Subject: South Willamette Concept Plan Implementation ____________________________________________________________________________________ ISSUE STATEMENT Planning Commission will continue deliberations on the proposed adoption package for the South Willamette Special Area Zone. We will discuss key issues raised in public testimony and by commissioners following the public hearing, and conclude discussion of topics begun at the June 15th deliberations. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed adoption package to implement the South Willamette Special Area Zone on June 2, 2015. The public hearing and deliberations are a necessary part of the formal procedures leading toward adoption later this year. As a reminder, the package of legislative adopted plan amendments, code amendments and zone changes includes the following City-initiated land use applications:
Code Amendments (CA 15-1): Amends the Eugene Code, Land Use Chapter 9, to include a new South Willamette Special Area Zone (S-SW) and related changes necessary to integrate the new zone with existing code provisions; also implements the concurrent Metro Plan designation changes noted below.
Metro Plan Amendments (MA 15-2): Amends the Metro Plan land use diagram to support the parcel specific implementation of proposed S-SW zone and related sub-districts and overlays, and designate the area as a Multi-Modal Mixed-Use Area (“MMA”). Proposed Metro Plan text amendments will also add a description for the new low-medium density residential plan designation (i.e. “Single Family Options/Rowhouse Allowed”). Refinement Plan Amendments (RA 15-1): Amends the existing adopted South Willamette Subarea Study land use diagram and related text necessary to implement the proposed S-SW zone and related sub-districts and overlays in the northern portion of the subject area. Zone Changes (Z 15-4): Amends the existing zoning to implement the new S-SW zone and related designation changes noted above, and to match the proposed sub-districts and overlays included on the regulating plan for the S-SW zone.
PC Agenda - Page 1
The public record was held open following the public hearing until June 9, 2015 to allow additional written testimony. A full set of the public testimony received through close of the record has been provided separately for consideration as part of deliberations and is also available to the public on the City’s website at: http://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/SearchApplicationDocuments?file=Z-15-0004. To help assist with deliberations, staff has provided a revised summary of key topics and issues raised in public testimony with possible options that the Planning Commission can consider as part of its deliberations (see Attachment A). Additionally, topics discussed during the June 15th deliberations will be brought to a vote. Staff recommends that the commission start deliberations with these topics as outlined, recognizing that there are likely additional topics that commissioners may wish to raise individually upon review of the testimony. To the extent possible, it is hoped that each topic area is broad enough to capture a variety of issues and themes raised by commissioners and the public testimony to date, and to provide an efficient framework for deliberations. A set of parcel specific maps, showing the current and proposed zoning and plan designations, are also provided again for ease of reference (see Attachment B). As deliberations proceed, staff will assist with any additional responsive materials or information needed to help lead toward possible action. Once the Planning Commission makes its final recommendation on the proposed adoption package, a work session and second public hearing will be held before the City Council makes its final decision. NEXT STEPS The City Council will hold a work session and another public hearing before final action on the proposed adoption package. ATTACHMENTS A. Summary of Key Topics for Deliberation B. Parcel Specific Maps (Current and Proposed Plan Designations and Zoning) FOR MORE INFORMATION Gabe Flock at 541-682-5697 or [email protected] Jennifer Knapp at 541-682-5445 or [email protected] Will Dowdy at 541-682-5561 or [email protected]
South Willamette Special Area Zone Planning Commission Deliberations
Summary of Key Topics for Deliberation: The following outline provides a summary of key topics raised in public testimony, and other issues for further discussion as part of the Planning Commission’s deliberations on the proposed adoption package for the South Willamette Special Area Zone. The intent of the outline and discussion of each key topic area in the following document is to provide an organized framework for deliberations and to facilitate a final recommendation with a set of options that address those remaining issues and concerns. Keep in mind that the summary of key topics is not intended in any way to diminish or gloss over the specific details of individual testimony included as part of the record to date. A complete copy of all written testimony has been provided separately and commissioners are encouraged to review that information closely for deliberations. The following document is organized according to the numbered sections listed below:
1. Parking Requirements 2. Site Access & Alleys 3. Building Height – South end of Willamette Street 4. Mixed-Use and Height Transition at Portland Street/West 25th Avenue 5. Service Station Building Frontage 6. Multi-Family Open Space Exemption 7. 1% Public Art Requirement for Parking Structures
A revised set of options and final direction will be provided by the Commission on topics discussed at the first deliberation meeting:
8. Residential Zones A. East 23rd Avenue Area B. Portland Street/Cascade Manor Area C. Mill/High/Ferry Street Area
9. General Consistency/Correction/Clarification Items
For each key topic area, the following document provides a brief description of the issue, key considerations, relevant background information, and a set of possible options for the Planning Commission to consider. Staff recommends that we continue deliberations with these topics, recognizing that there are additional topics that may still need further discussion prior to a final recommendation.
PC Agenda - Page 3
Attachment A
1. Parking Requirements Issue: Concern that the proposed off-street parking requirements may be insufficient as the area’s density increases. “Spill-over” parking from customers and staff of commercial properties and multi-family residential development could negatively impact on-street parking and neighborhood livability in nearby single-family residential areas. Key Considerations: Requiring parking in excess of current standards will limit redevelopment potential on already constrained sites. Overbuilt parking has long term environmental impact, conflicts with the intent of the new special area zone, and runs counter to a variety of overarching City policies and objectives to promote alternative modes of travel, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, facilitate compact urban growth and pedestrian/bicycle-friendly design. Generally lower parking requirements and flexibility in meeting those standards is essential to qualify for designation of the area as a “Mixed-Use Multi-Modal Area” (MMA) and therefore comply with Statewide Planning Goal 12 (TPR). Additional non-regulatory parking strategies may also be necessary or desirable to help adapt over time, provide convenient/walkable access within the district, and to alleviate potential spill-over parking impacts, in addition to minimum off-street parking standards in the proposed code. Background Information: Tables are provided below with excerpts of existing and proposed code to help summarize and show a comparison of existing and proposed off-street requirements:
Existing EC Table 9.6410 Required Off-Street Motor Vehicle Parking:
Minimum Number of Off-Street Parking
Spaces Maximum Number of Off-Street Parking
Spaces
Single-Family and Multiple-Family
Residential
Typical Residential Zones: 1 per dwelling (single-family dwellings);
1 per dwelling (multi-family);
R-3/R-4 University Area Zones: 1 per dwelling for studio, 1 & 2 bedroom
dwellings; 1.5 per dwelling for 3 bedroom units, with .5 spaces for each additional bedroom
EC 9.3858(10)(b): Allowed Reductions in Minimum Motor Vehicle Parking. The following reductions in minimum parking requirements are allowed, except that the cumulative total of all reductions for a specific development or use shall not exceed 50 percent of the total minimum number of spaces required. 1. Open Space. Minimum parking requirements may be reduced by one space for every
200 square feet of public or semi-public open space provided on the development site. 2. Shared Parking. When two or more uses share common parking facilities, the total
number of minimum spaces required for those uses individually may be reduced by 25 percent.
3. Frequent Transit. Minimum parking requirements may be reduced by an additional 25 percent on development sites located within 600 feet of a transit stop with service every 15 minutes or less between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday.
4. Time-Flex Parking. Minimum parking requirements may be reduced by one parking space for each parking space shared on other properties within 350 feet of the development site and allowing the flexed use of parking to accommodate parking demand during specific times of day.
5. Car Sharing. Minimum parking requirements may be reduced by three spaces for each car-sharing vehicle located on-site, and a reduction of two spaces for each car-sharing vehicle located within ¼ mile of the development site. All parking spaces for car-sharing vehicles must be clearly signed and used only for car share vehicles.
Proposed EC Table 9.3868(10) S-SW/SFO Zone Parking Requirements:
Housing Type: Row House Courtyard Cottage Cluster Single-Family Detached
Minimum number of parking spaces required per
unit 1 1 1 1
Threshold for Shared Parking Requirement - - 4 Spaces or More -
Non-Shared Parking Allowed Yes Yes Maximum of 3 Spaces Yes
Tandem Parking Allowed Yes Yes Yes Yes
PC Agenda - Page 6
Attachment A
Non-Regulatory Parking Strategies: The South Willamette Parking Strategy Options memo included with the May 18, 2015 AIS (Attachment B) identified the role of parking management as another means of implementing the South Willamette Concept Plan, and complementary tool to the code language of the Special Area Zone. At the May 18, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, Jeff Petry, the City of Eugene’s Parking Manager, described three strategies that could be a part of the parking management strategy for South Willamette: public parking on a private lot, payment in lieu of parking requirements, and a Mobility Improvement District (MID). Another strategy in use in other neighborhoods is a residential parking permit system. Although these strategies are primarily crafted with neighborhood input and implemented through administrative order, there are actions that the Planning Commission can take to advance the development of the South Willamette Parking Strategy Options.
• A MID is the framework that brings local businesses and residents together for the establishment of strategies such as a shared parking lot or payment in lieu of parking requirements. To implement a MID in South Willamette or anywhere else in the city, enabling language would need to be added to the Eugene Code.
Action: Recommend to City Council that City staff create MID enabling provisions.
• Parking staff have implemented new pricing programs for residential parking permits in high
density residential zones. This summer, parking staff are working with neighborhood leaders to evolve the current residential parking program to preserve the availability of public parking and protect long-term residents. When this program is implemented and tested by the influx of students in the fall, the Parking staff will be able provide feedback on the new residential permit model.
Action: Request that the Parking Manager provide an update to Planning Commission in mid-fall regarding the City residential parking programs.
• All parking strategy options require the involvement of the neighborhood. The property
owners, residents and business owners in the South Willamette area have clearly indicated that parking management is a priority for them, and the next step is to begin a discussion with them about the implementation of specific parking strategies.
Action: Request that Parking Management staff begin conversations with the South Willamette community members including residents, business owners and neighborhood groups regarding parking strategy implementation.
PC Agenda - Page 7
Attachment A
Parking Options
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Recommend adoption as proposed in SW-SAZ. Impact: • Consistent with overall
policy objectives; • Qualifies for adoption of
proposed MMA designation; • Maintains reasonable
amount of flexibility and consistency with other SAZ’s.
Recommend adoption as proposed in SW-SAZ with direction to undertake non-regulatory parking strategy action items. Impact: • Establishes an actionable
plan to mitigate spill-over parking before reactionary measures are necessary.
• Non-codified strategies allow for flexibility as the district evolves.
• Consistent with overall policy objectives;
• Qualifies for adoption of proposed MMA designation;
• Maintains reasonable amount of flexibility and consistency with other SAZ’s.
Increase proposed off-street parking requirements. Impact: • Inconsistent with overall
policy objectives. • Could significantly
constrain redevelopment potential
• May cause long-term over supply of off-street parking,
• May disqualify adoption package for MMA designation.
PC Agenda - Page 8
Attachment A
2. Site Access & Alleys
Issue: Testimony from some commercial owners including Capella Market as well as neighbors in nearby residential areas indicate that requiring alley access and preferred access from secondary streets may be overly burdensome for redevelopment, while also causing negative impacts due to traffic, parking and cut-through traffic in adjacent neighborhood areas. Key Considerations: The proposed code, in conjunction with existing access management standards, requires alley access when available but does not preclude alternatives. There are only a few existing alleys in the area, and the likelihood of new alleys is very low given the layout of existing development. As a result, the proposed code provides flexibility in the absence of an alley, to take access from a shared driveway or an adjacent public street. Under existing access management standards which are also applicable within S-SW, a hierarchy of preference is already established to require access to lower classification streets (i.e. side streets) where available, and limits the ability to create new access connections on arterial streets such as Willamette Street. The S-SW standards have been carefully crafted to further the overall objective of reducing the number of driveways onto Willamette Street, and requiring alley access where available is one fundamental aspect of helping to achieve the goal of making the area more pedestrian-friendly. The proposed code also provides an option for Design Review as an alternative to the site access standards, thereby enabling flexibility so long as those criteria can be met. Background Information: An excerpt of existing access management standards, and the related site access standards proposed for S-SW, is also provided below for ease of reference:
EC 7.410 Access Connections – Number, Width and Shared.
(1) Unless there is an access agreement between development sites, a development site shall be entitled to one access connection.
EC 7.420 Access Connections – Location. (1) Access Connections to all Street Classifications. Access connections to
all street classifications shall be located in accordance with the following standards: If a parcel has frontage on two or more streets of different street classifications, the access connection shall access the street with the lowest classification. The access connection can access the street with the higher classification if the applicant can demonstrate (1), (2) or (3): 1. Both of the following conditions are met:
a. The proposed access connection is abutted by two or more directional travel lanes or an auxiliary deceleration lane; and
Note: Highlighted areas indicate locations where access to existing alleys has been raised as a concern in public testimony.
PC Agenda - Page 9
Attachment A
b. The applicant proposes a restricted movement access connection, including but not limited to median barriers or directional in/out barriers.
Proposed Site Access Standards (S-SW/MU):
EC 9.3858(9)(b): Motor Vehicle Access. Parking access shall be from an alley. In the absence of an existing or proposed alley, access shall be from a driveway shared with a property abutting the development site. In the absence of an alley or shared driveway, access shall be from any public street abutting the development site. Approved access from the public street does not exempt the property from compliance with the minimum lot frontage occupancy requirements of Table 9.3858(6). Motor vehicle access shall comply with EC 7.410, EC 7.420 and EC 7.430 except as follows. 1. Any exceptions to the provisions of EC 7.410 that require an Alternative Traffic Safety
Study shall also require Design Review per EC 9.3894(7). 2. Surface parking areas accommodating more than eight vehicles and accessed directly
from a street shall provide at least one internal vehicle accessway connection to an abutting lot, except as follows: a. The portion of the lot abutting the parking area is currently occupied by a
building. b. Slope between the lots at the connection location exceeds a grade of 10
percent. 3. Pedestrian walkways shall be emphasized by enhanced paving or markings when they
are crossed by access connections. Access connections located within five feet of an existing alley connection shall follow the requirements of EC 7.420(1)(d), with the exception that the combined connection shall not exceed 12 feet adjacent to the alley width.
Site Access & Alleys
Option 1 Option 2
Recommend adoption as proposed in S-SW to require alley access where available. Impact: May limit re-development potential in a few cases where alleys exist, unless opting for Design Review as an alternative to meeting the standards. Potential for additional noise and traffic impacts on adjacent uses and nearby residential areas.
Recommend removing alley access requirements from the proposed site access standards. Impact: Poses additional overall risks to pedestrian safety; increased potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts; may increase development potential in a few cases but limits effectiveness of standards to limit new access connections and thereby meet overall objectives.
PC Agenda - Page 10
Attachment A
3. Building Height – South End of Willamette Street
Issue: Testimony from property owners along South Willamette in this area generally support the SW-SAZ as proposed. A property owner on Portland Street abutting the boundary to the west, in the area near 32nd Avenue requests lower height (from 5 story along Willamette to 3-story). The request is for similar consideration as to the area north of 24th Avenue along the west side Willamette Street and already changed from 5-story to 3-story. Key Considerations: This area does have characteristics similar to the area west of Willamette north of 24th Avenue. Steep topography in this location could exacerbate the impacts on adjacent single-family character, and a lower height limit could help to provide a tapered transition toward the very south end of the district. At the very south end, the 5-story height would directly abut several single-family lots on Portland Street with no height transition. Background Information: Current Plan Designation: LDR Proposed Plan Designation: HDR Current Zoning: R-1, Low-Density Residential (0-14 DU/acre; 37 feet max. height with 6:12 roof pitch) Proposed Zoning: Apartment/Condo Sub-District (20-56 DU/acre; 65 feet max. height – 5 stories)
Building Height (Willamette Street south of 31st Avenue)
Option 1 Option 2 Recommend adoption as proposed in SW-SAZ. Keep 5-story height limit at this location. Impacts: Retains development potential; no height transition provided for abutting single-family; limits solar access and could block views in area of steep topography.
Recommend revising the building height diagram to change from 5 to 3-story. Impacts: Limits development potential; provides better transition to adjacent single-family; accounts for steep topography and views along Portland Street to the east.
PC Agenda - Page 11
Attachment A
4. Mixed-Use & Height Transition at Portland Street/West 25th Avenue
Issue: Concern by adjacent property owner that proposed uses and height allowance may be inconsistent with proposed character and continuity along Portland Street. Support for residential density, but questions height transition as shown on the proposed diagram and potentially incompatible uses. Key Considerations: As proposed and diagrammed within the S-SW Zone Regulating Plan – Height Map Figure 9.3854(2), the dotted line indicates where a height transition is required within a property line boundary. For the properties in question (on the corner of Portland St. and W 25th Ave) Property 1 (as outlined in red on the diagram below) requires a height transition from 5-stories to 3-stories within the lot line boundary. Property 2 (as outlined in green on the diagram below) does not require a height transition because it does not have frontage on Portland St. A height stepdown is proposed along Portland Street as a transition element between higher intensity uses and to provide a gradual height transition between commercial and single-family residential. Background Information: Current zoning: GO Proposed Zoning: Mixed Use Current Plan Designation: LDR Proposed Plan Designation: Commercial
Property 1
Property 2
PC Agenda - Page 12
Attachment A
Portland Street Subdistrict Options
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Recommend adoption as proposed in SW-SAZ. Impact: • Maintains commercial use of
properties zoned GO; • Inconsistent designation
with other properties on Portland St.
Recommend re-designating “Property 1” as AC subdistrict. Impact: • Downzones property; • Consistent with designation
of other properties on Portland St.
Recommend re-designating both properties as AC subdistrict. Impact: • Downzones properties; • Consistent with designation
of other properties on Portland St.
Portland Street Height Transition
The concern about height transitions comes from a misunderstanding of the code diagram. No change to the draft code appears necessary to address this concern.
PC Agenda - Page 13
Attachment A
5. Service Station Building Frontage Issue: Any new or redeveloping Service Stations are required to meet the standards of the SW-SAZ, including Minimum Building Frontage standards in Table 9.3858(6). However, the conventional design for Service Stations does not comply with these standards, with the building typically set back behind the automobile fueling areas. Key Considerations: One of the stated intents of this code is to “Further economic development by enhancing the district’s quality and character and providing opportunities for redevelopment.” See EC 9.3830(1)(c). This includes avoiding standards that would make redevelopment unduly onerous or limit a business’s viability. At the same time, maintaining Active Street Fronts is one of the core strategies of achieving the walkable neighborhood envisioned in the original Concept Plan. Background Information: Service Stations fall under the category of Vehicle Services (see EC 9.3840(1)(d)) and are permitted in the MU subdistrict, but not the MU/AF overlay unless redeveloping a pre-existing fuel station. Like all properties, the standards for Service Stations apply with any of the following triggers (note that the standards do not apply to a building remodel): • New development on vacant property; • New buildings on property that is currently developed; • Expansions of existing building square footage by 30 percent or more, or that
exceed 3,000 square feet, whichever is less; • Alterations of existing buildings that add a dwelling(s).
Service Station Lot Frontage Options
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Recommend adoption as proposed in SW-SAZ. Impact: • Maintains consistent
standards for Active Street Fronts;
• Requires Service Stations to utilize alternative redevelopment scheme.
Recommend Minimum Building Frontage exemption for existing Service Stations. Impact: • Perpetuates gaps in the
walkable street frontage; • Allows Service Stations to
redevelop with their conventional site layout.
Recommend Minimum Building Frontage exemption for all Service Stations. Impact: • Allows new automobile
circulation to interrupt the walkable street frontage;
• Allows Service Stations to build new or redevelop with their conventional site layout.
PC Agenda - Page 14
Attachment A
6. Multi-Family Open Space Exception Issue: Multi-family development has minimum requirements for the provision of common open space as proposed in EC 9.3858(5)(a). The size of the required open space must be at least 20% of the development site area, or 15% of the livable floor area, whichever is greater. The proposed code allows an exception to this standard if a minimum 400 square feet of public or semi-public space is provided abutting a street. Key Considerations: This exception provides an incentive to property owners to convert common open space (a private amenity) into a public amenity. Since common open space is one component of a livable neighborhood, the intent is not to make the exception overly compelling, but to provide a balanced choice between the two options. Additional public open space will create more opportunities for outdoor dining, public art, gardens, seating and other means of activating the streetscape. Background Information: This exemption only applies to multi-family development, and does not apply to the SFO subdistrict. As the requirement is currently written, the qualifying open space could be met in front setback areas.
Multi-Family Open Space Exemption
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Recommend adoption as proposed in SW-SAZ. Impact: • Strong incentive to provide
public or semi-public open space;
• Could minimize the provision of common open space in multi-family development, especially larger projects;
• Enables more compact development.
Recommend adoption of a modified code requirement: Developments providing at least 400 square feet of public or semi-public open space abutting a public street (in addition to other required setbacks and having no dimension less than 15 feet), shall include a minimum of either 5% of the development site or 3.75% of the livable floor area, whichever is greater, as common open space. Impact: • Maintains incentive to
provide public or semi-public open space;
• Preserves common open space in multi-family development;
• Enables more compact development.
Recommend the deletion of the exception to minimum common open space requirements. Impact: • Maintains full common
open space amenity for residents/tenants;
• No incentive to create public or semi-public open space use as an alternative.
PC Agenda - Page 15
Attachment A
7. 1% Public Art Requirement for Parking Structures Issue: The code requires that 1% of the total cost of the parking facility be used to include public art on the exterior of the structure. Comments from Planning Commission and the consultant have identified this as an unnecessary financial burden on the preferred type of parking, creating a disincentive that could undermine the success of the concept. At the same time, the incorporation of public art into parking structures provides a point of visual interest in what can otherwise be a drab or unfriendly building type. Key Considerations: Structured Parking is defined in EC 9.0500 as “A publicly or privately owned structure having one or more tiers of height, designed and used for parking 4 or more motor vehicles.” Background Information: The 1% rule is not applied generally in Eugene, but is included in recent Special Area Zones for Walnut Station and EWEB Downtown Riverfront. The standard has proven more difficult to implement in those zones than expected because it depends on cooperation with the developer to establish the total cost of the project and the total cost of the art, and because it is difficult to define parameters for what constitutes compliant public art.
1% Public Art Requirement for Parking Structures
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Recommend adoption as proposed in SW-SAZ. Impact: • Creates opportunities for
Public Art; • Could constrain the market
for structured parking; • Could reduce quality of
design and construction for parking structures;
• Maintains consistency with other SAZ’s.
Recommend adoption as proposed in SW-SAZ with the qualification that the standard only applies to parking structures with 50 spaces or more. Impact: • Reduces, but does not
eliminate opportunities for Public Art.
• Has no negative effect on market for small parking structures;
• Could constrain the market for structured parking;
• Could reduce quality of design for large parking structures;
• Maintains reasonable amount of consistency with other SAZ’s.
Recommend deletion of Public Art requirement. Impact: • Eliminates a funding source
for Public Art. • Has no negative effect on
market for parking structures.
• Breaks consistency with other SAZ’s.
PC Agenda - Page 16
Attachment A
8. Residential Zones
A. East 23rd Avenue Issue: Some residents in an area of R-1 zoned housing along East 23rd Avenue oppose the proposed designation and up-zoning to the AC subdistrict with a 5 story height limit; they request retention of the existing R-1 zoning. Resident concerns include the loss of single family character, solar access, traffic, density and access. Concerns have also been expressed that property owners may not continue to invest in property maintenance and improvements to single family residences as a result of the proposed changes. Key Considerations: The area is currently situated amongst existing and planned higher impact uses, and has long been designated for multi- family (MDR) development. The existing designation already calls for R-2 zoning, which was one key factor in the S-SW/AC proposal for this area. Preserving the existing single-family character would require a significant policy shift to lower the designation to LDR, and would not address conflicts and impacts from abutting higher impact uses. The proposed adoption package would also resolve plan/zone conflicts in the area. Background Information: Current Zoning: R-1 Proposed Zoning: Apartment/Condo Sub-District Current Plan Designation: MDR (10-28 DU/acre; 35 feet max. height) Proposed Plan Designation: HDR (20-56 DU/acre; 65 feet max. height)
Rezoning (East 23rd Avenue)
Option 1 Option 2 As proposed, re-designate properties on East 23rd Avenue Apartment/Condo (AC) sub-district.
Re-designate properties on East 23rd Avenue to Single Family Options with Rowhouse Allowed overlay (SFO/RA).
Option 1A Option 1B Option 2A Option 2B As proposed, set a maximum height of 5 stories.
Lower the maximum height to 3 stories.
Tax lot 4200, highlighted in yellow and currently zoned R-3, should remain AC as proposed.
Tax lot 4200 should also be re-designated as SFO/RA.
PC Agenda - Page 17
Attachment A
B. Portland Street & Cascade Manor Issue: Some property owners within close proximity to Cascade Manor are concerned with rezoning of R-1 properties to the Apartment/Condo Sub-District. Concerns include traffic, parking, proposed height, allowed uses, and preservation of existing single-family homes. Testimony also expresses concern with construction impacts from on-going expansion of Cascade Manor’s retirement center facility. Cascade Manor has also requested consideration of expanding the 5-story height limit (which currently provides a 3-story transition along the south edge of this area) and a street typology with a narrower sidewalk width for the east-west stub street into their development site (West 29th Place). Key Considerations: The area is already designated for multi-family (MDR) uses adjacent to higher impact uses than compared to the existing single-family homes in this area. The existing MDR land use designation calls for R-2 zoning which would be adjacent to existing R-3 zoned areas on either side. Similar to the East 23rd Avenue area, preserving the existing single-family character would require a significant policy shift to lower the designation LDR/R-1, and would not address the conflict with abutting higher intensity uses. The proposed adoption package would also resolve plan/zone conflicts in the area. Background Information: Current Zoning: R-1 & R-2 (Adjacent to R-3) Proposed Zoning: Apartment/Condo Sub-District Current Plan Designation: MDR (10-28 DU/acre; 35 feet max. height) Proposed: HDR (20-56 DU/acre; 45 feet max. height – 3 stories; 90 feet maximum height – 7 stories)
Rezoning (West 30th Avenue at Portland Street)
Option 1 Option 2 As proposed, 5 properties on 30th Avenue (outlined in red on the map) will be rezoned AC with no overlay designation.
Re-designate the 5 properties Apartment/Condo with Rowhouse Character overlay (AC/RC).
PC Agenda - Page 18
Attachment A
Transition (West 30th Avenue at Portland Street)
Option 1 Option 2 As proposed, properties on 30th Avenue within the Special Area Zone have a 3-story maximum height.
Apply a Special Stepdown to 6 properties within the Special Area Zone facing R-1 properties. A proposed Special Stepdown to 2 stories as measured from the front property line for the first 40 feet of the property would apply.
Street Typology (West 29th Place at Portland Street)
Option 1 Option 2 As proposed, Street Type I is applied to West 29th Place.
As requested through testimony, Street Type G is applied to West 29th Place.
29th Place
PC Agenda - Page 19
Attachment A
C. Mill, High, Ferry Street Area Issue: Residents in an area of R-1 zoned housing on High Street generally support the plan as proposed but request traffic calming or closure of High Street and an alternate street typology. Some concerns have been expressed that added density within the SW-SAZ boundary will reinforce and exacerbate an existing pattern of high speed cut-through traffic. Some residents also request a street typology more consistent with the existing conditions that allows parking on both sides of the street. Property owners on East 29th Avenue have supported proposed rezoning but owners on streets just off of 29th are concerned with rezoning of R-1 properties to the Apartment/Condo Sub-District. Concerns include traffic, parking, safety, views, and preservation of single-family character. A request was made for more flexibility to add dwelling units (SDUs) within SFO and AC zones without triggering the new standards. Key Considerations: Closing High Street would conflict with policies for street connectivity. Non-regulatory traffic calming strategies and measures could be implemented without revisions to the proposed code and would provide flexibility for addressing traffic issues as the area changes over time. However, certain thresholds would need to be met. Traffic calming speed-bumps and/or bulb-outs have been installed on adjacent cut-through streets such as East 31st, 32nd and 33rd south of this neighborhood, although High Street did not qualify for traffic calming in 2008 and may still not qualify under current conditions. A street type more consistent with the existing pattern could also be applied. Proposed zoning for the Apartment/Condo Sub-District with Rowhouse Character along East 29th Avenue furthers overall policy objectives of concentrating growth along corridors and is consistent with the vision as recommended in the Concept Plan. Background Information: Current Zoning: R-1 Proposed Zoning: Apartment/Condo Sub-District Current Plan Designation: LDR (14 DU/acre; 37 feet max. height with 6:12 roof pitch) Proposed Plan Designation: HDR (20-56 DU/acre; 45 feet max. height) Street Typology (High Street)
Option 1 Option 2
As proposed, Street Type J is applied to High Street.
Street Type G or an alternate queueing street type is applied to High Street.
PC Agenda - Page 20
Attachment A
Secondary Dwelling Units in the SFO and AC Zones
Option 1 Option 2 As proposed, the addition of a unit on any property in the AC or SFO subdistricts triggers the new standards. See Application of Standard Requirements for AC in EC 9.3858(1)(a), and SFO in EC 9.3868(1)(a).
One SDU may be added to any property in the AC or SFO subdistricts without triggering the new standards.
Rezoning (East 29th Avenue)
Option 1 Option 2 Recommend adoption as proposed in SW-SAZ. Impact: Potential changes to existing neighborhood character; enables transformation to multi-family; furthers overall policy objectives.
Recommend revised regulating plan, designation and zone change from AC Sub-District along East 29th Avenue to SFO/RA. Impact: Allows for some increase in density and housing options; corresponds with future development pattern of the surrounding area; limits development potential on a minor arterial.
PC Agenda - Page 21
Attachment A
9. General Corrections/Consistency/Clarification Items Issue: Staff recommends incorporating several code corrections as suggested during the internal and consultant review process. These proposed changes are not intended to involve any significant policy decisions however; they are more substantive than simple clarification and reconciling consistency. Car Sharing – EC 9.3858(10)(b)5. Issue: Car Sharing is currently included as one of the options for reducing minimum parking requirements. Staff recommends deleting this option after receiving feedback from Parking Management that car sharing is difficult to monitor after the building permit is issued. Recommendation: Delete the Car Share option for parking requirement reduction. Minimum Floor Heights for Residential Buildings – EC Figures 9.3854 (2.1-2.4) Issue: In the MU and AC sub-districts the ground floor height is set to a minimum of 14 feet. This requirement produces good non-residential space, but is excessive for residential use. A reduction for residential uses allows those buildings to be more efficient. At the same time, staff does not want to preclude the eventual transition of ground floor residential space into commercial space as the market evolves. Recommendation: In the AC sub-district, the ground floor height is set to a minimum of 10 feet. Interior Yard Sloped Setback – EC 9.3858(7)(a)1.a. Issue: The Sloped Setback is one of the key transition elements for MU or AC properties abutting or across an alley from SFO or R-1 properties. As written, the sloped portion of the setback begins at a height of “25 feet above grade or the height of the main building on the abutting property, whichever is greater.” The inclusion of the neighboring building height as a component of this standard unnecessarily complicates the standard and can create future non-conforming properties if a 25+ foot neighboring building is later replaced by something less than 25 feet. Recommendation: Limit the standard to 25 feet above grade only. Articulation Standards as Transition Elements – EC 9.3858(7)(a)2. Issue: Façade articulation is one of the transition elements for MU or AC properties abutting or across an alley from SFO or R-1 properties. A back or side elevation facing the residential property must comply with the requirements for General Articulation, Vertical Articulation elements, Horizontal Articulation elements and the building type. This represents a minimal return for the cost to the property owner and it diverts the attention of the owner, the designers and the city from what should be the most important: the street front. Recommendation: Remove the requirement for Building Articulation on back and side building elevations as a part of transition.
PC Agenda - Page 22
Attachment A
Street Types – EC Figure 9.3850(2) Issue: West 30th Avenue is currently very narrow, has minimal capacity to handle additional traffic impacts, and is located at the edge of the proposed new Special Area Zone. A street typology consistent with others proposed in the new zone could be applied to better accommodate additional traffic impacts in the long-term, as compared to existing local street standards. Recommendation: Change West 30th Avenue to Type G between Willamette Street and the western property line of Cascade Manor. Other Consistency and Clarification Items Issue: Staff recommends incorporating several code changes to reconcile consistency issues and provide clarification as suggested during the review process. Improvements to readability and ease in implementing the code were suggested by the consultant, PDD partners, and community members. These proposed changes are not content related and are not intended to involve any significant policy decisions. A few relevant examples include the following: EC Figure 9.3854(2) S-SW Zone Regulating Plan – Building Height Add additional clarifying symbol (direction of measurement for height transition) to southern end of Willamette Street. EC 9.3854(2) – Building Heights Add explanation of Special Stepdown to accompany the diagrams. EC Figure 9.3858(6)(a) S-SW Zone Building Frontage and Setbacks Revise figure to show full range of frontage and setback options for the Residential Use Building on the bottom side of the street. EC 9.3858(6)(f)2. – Pedestrian-scale outdoor lighting for MU subdistrict Clarify that “minimum interval of 30 feet” for lighting fixtures means that the space between lights should be a maximum of 30 feet. EC 9.3858(6)(h)4. – Restriction on Blank Walls in MU and AC subdistricts Clarify that opaque doors and “exit only” doors do not meet the requirements for openings on blank walls.
PC Agenda - Page 23
Current South Willamette Zoning
R-1C-2PL
R-3
GO
R-2
R-1
C-1
WILL
AMET
TE S
T
AMAZ
ON P
KWY
LINCO
LN S
T
E 33RD AVE
HIGH
ST
LAW
RENC
E ST
WASH
INGT
ON S
T
W 27TH AVE
W 29TH AVE
E 24TH AVE
CREST DR
W 23RD AVE
W 22ND AVE
E 32ND AVE
E 34TH AVE
LAW
RENC
E ALY
E 30TH AVE
MILL
ST
E 32ND ALY
E 31ST AVE
OAK
ST
E 33RD ALY
CHAR
NELT
ON A
LY
W 31ST AVE
W 30TH AVE
E 29TH AVE
OLIV
E ALY
FERR
Y ST
PORT
LAND
ST
HILY
ARD
ST
PEAR
L ST
E 31ST ALY
W 25TH AVE
HILY
ARD
ALY
W 24TH PL
OLIV
E ST
PATT
ERSO
N ST
E 27TH AVE
W 27TH PL
MCMI
LLAN
ALY
DONA
LD S
T
E 29TH PL
W 28TH AVE
E 28TH AVE
E 24TH PL
PRALL LN
E 25TH AVE
E 26TH AVE
LINCO
LN A
LY
CHAR
NELT
ON S
T
PORT
LAND
ALY
E 23RD AVE
WILL
AMET
TE A
LY
MCMI
LLAN
ST
W 26TH AVE
LOMA LINDA LN
E 24TH ALY
W 29TH PL
DONA
LD A
LY
W 24TH AVE
MINICK LN
OLIV
E ST
W 24TH AVE
LINCO
LN A
LY
MCMI
LLAN
ST
HIGH
ST
PORT
LAND
ST
WILL
AMET
TE A
LY
W 26TH AVE
MCMI
LLAN
ALY
LINCO
LN S
T
OLIV
E ST
CHAR
NELT
ON S
T
FERR
Y ST
OLIV
E ST
LINCO
LN A
LY
OLIVE S
TOL
IVE
ST
WILL
AMET
TE A
LY
0 1,000500 Feet
Current ZoningC-1 Neighborhood CommercialC-2 Community CommercialGO General OfficePL Public LandR-1 Low-Density ResidentialR-2 Medium-Density ResidentialR-3 Limited High-Density Residential
SiteEugene
Attachment AAttachment A
PC Agenda - Page 42PC Agenda - Page 24
CEPLACJ
Text Box
CEPLACJ
Text Box
Attachment B
CEPLACJ
Text Box
Proposed South Willamette Special Area Zone (S-SW)
SFOMUPL
AC
SFO
WILL
AMET
TE S
T
AMAZ
ON P
KWY
LINCO
LN S
T
HIGH
ST
W 27TH AVE
CREST DR
E 33RD AVE
W 23RD AVE
W 22ND AVELA
WRE
NCE
ST
WASH
INGT
ON S
T
E 32ND AVE
E 24TH AVE
LAW
RENC
E ALY
E 30TH AVE
MILL
ST
E 32ND ALY
E 34TH AVE
W 29TH AVE
OAK
ST
E 33RD ALY
W 31ST AVE
CHAR
NELT
ON A
LY
E 31ST AVE
W 30TH AVE
E 29TH AVEFE
RRY
ST
OLIV
E ALY
PORT
LAND
ST
PEAR
L ST
E 31ST ALY
W 24TH PL
OLIV
E ST
E 27TH AVE
W 25TH AVE
PATT
ERSO
N ST
W 27TH PL
DONA
LD S
T
E 29TH PL
MCMI
LLAN
ALY
W 28TH AVE
E 28TH AVE
E 24TH PL
PRALL LN
W 26TH AVE
E 25TH AVE
E 26TH AVE
LINCO
LN A
LY
CHAR
NELT
ON S
T
PORT
LAND
ALY
E 23RD AVE
WILL
AMET
TE A
LY
LOMA LINDA LN
MCMI
LLAN
ST
WASH
INGT
ON A
LY
E 24TH ALY
W 24TH AVE
W 29TH PL
DONA
LD A
LY
MINICK LN
OLIVE S
T
W 24TH AVE
LINCO
LN A
LY
OLIV
E ST
MCMI
LLAN
ST
HIGH
ST
PORT
LAND
ST
OLIV
E ST
WILL
AMET
TE A
LY
WASH
INGT
ON A
LY
W 26TH AVE
WASH
INGT
ON S
T
MCMI
LLAN
ALY
CHAR
NELT
ON S
T
FERR
Y ST
OLIV
E ST
LINCO
LN A
LY
OLIV
E ST
LINCO
LN S
T
WILL
AMET
TE A
LY
S-SW South Willamette Special Area ZoneMMA - Multi-Modal Mixed-Use Area Boundary
Proposed Special Area Zone SubdistrictsMU - Mixed Use AC - Apartments or CondominiumsSFO - Single Family OptionsPL - Public Land (Primary zone not changed)
Proposed Subdistrict OverlaysAF - Active Frontage (MU)RA - Row House Allowed (SFO)RC - Row House Character Required (AC) 0 1,000500 Feet
SiteEugene
Attachment AAttachment A
PC Agenda - Page 43PC Agenda - Page 25
CEPLACJ
Text Box
CEPLACJ
Text Box
Attachment B
CEPLACJ
Text Box
Current South Willamette Metro Plan Designation
COMLDR
MDR
HDR
WILL
AMET
TE S
T
AMAZ
ON P
KWY
LINCO
LN S
T
E 33RD AVE
HIGH
ST
LAW
RENC
E ST
WASH
INGT
ON S
T
W 27TH AVE
W 29TH AVE
E 24TH AVE
CREST DR
W 23RD AVE
W 22ND AVE
E 32ND AVE
LAW
RENC
E ALY
E 34TH AVE
E 30TH AVE
MILL
ST
E 32ND ALY
OAK
ST
E 31ST AVE
E 33RD ALY
CHAR
NELT
ON A
LY
W 31ST AVE
W 30TH AVE
E 29TH AVE
FERR
Y ST
OLIV
E ALY
PORT
LAND
ST
PEAR
L ST
E 31ST ALY
W 25TH AVE
HILY
ARD
ALY
W 24TH PL
OLIV
E ST
PATT
ERSO
N ST
E 27TH AVE
W 27TH PL
MCMI
LLAN
ALY
DONALD ST
E 29TH PL
W 28TH AVE
E 28TH AVE
E 24TH PL
PRALL LN
E 25TH AVE
E 26TH AVE
LINCO
LN A
LY
CHAR
NELT
ON S
T
PORT
LAND
ALY
E 23RD AVE
WILL
AMET
TE A
LY
MCMI
LLAN
ST
W 26TH AVE
E 24TH ALY
W 29TH PL
DONA
LD A
LY
W 24TH AVE
MINICK LN
W 24TH AVE
LINCO
LN A
LY
OLIV
E ST
MCMI
LLAN
ST
PORT
LAND
ST
LINCO
LN S
T
HIGH
ST
MCMI
LLAN
ALYW 26TH AVE
OLIV
E ST
OLIV
E ST
CHAR
NELT
ON S
T
FERR
Y ST
MCMI
LLAN
ST
OLIV
E ST
LINCO
LN A
LY
OLIVE S
T
WILL
AMET
TE A
LY
0 1,000500 Feet
Current Metro Plan DesignationLDR - Low Density ResidentialMDR - Medium Density ResidentialHDR - High Density ResidentialCOM - Commercial
SiteEugene
Attachment AAttachment A
PC Agenda - Page 44PC Agenda - Page 26
CEPLACJ
Text Box
CEPLACJ
Text Box
Attachment B
CEPLACJ
Text Box
Proposed South Willamette Metro Plan Designation
COMLDR
HDR
LMDR
WILL
AMET
TE S
T
AMAZ
ON P
KWY
LINCO
LN S
T
HIGH
ST
W 27TH AVE
CREST DR
E 33RD AVE
W 23RD AVE
W 22ND AVELA
WRE
NCE
ST
WASH
INGT
ON S
T
E 32ND AVE
E 24TH AVE
LAW
RENC
E ALY
E 30TH AVE
MILL
ST
E 32ND ALY
E 34TH AVE
W 29TH AVE
OAK
ST
E 33RD ALY
W 31ST AVE
CHAR
NELT
ON A
LY
E 31ST AVE
W 30TH AVE
E 29TH AVEFE
RRY
ST
OLIV
E ALY
PORT
LAND
ST
PEAR
L ST
E 31ST ALY
W 24TH PL
OLIV
E ST
E 27TH AVE
W 25TH AVE
PATT
ERSO
N ST
W 27TH PL
DONA
LD S
T
E 29TH PL
MCMI
LLAN
ALY
W 28TH AVE
E 28TH AVE
E 24TH PL
PRALL LN
W 26TH AVE
E 25TH AVE
E 26TH AVE
LINCO
LN A
LY
CHAR
NELT
ON S
T
PORT
LAND
ALY
E 23RD AVE
WILL
AMET
TE A
LY
LOMA LINDA LN
MCMI
LLAN
ST
WASH
INGT
ON A
LY
E 24TH ALY
W 24TH AVE
W 29TH PL
DONA
LD A
LY
MINICK LN
OLIVE S
T
W 24TH AVE
LINCO
LN A
LY
OLIV
E ST
MCMI
LLAN
ST
HIGH
ST
PORT
LAND
ST
OLIV
E ST
WILL
AMET
TE A
LY
WASH
INGT
ON A
LY
W 26TH AVE
WASH
INGT
ON S
T
MCMI
LLAN
ALY
CHAR
NELT
ON S
T
FERR
Y ST
OLIV
E ST
LINCO
LN A
LY
OLIV
E ST
LINCO
LN S
T
WILL
AMET
TE A
LY
Proposed Metro Plan DesignationMMA - Multi-Modal Mixed-Use Area BoundaryLDR - Low Density ResidentialLMDR - Low-Medium Density ResidentialHDR - High Density ResidentialCOM - Commercial 0 1,000500 Feet
