Planning Commission

MINUTES Planning Commission Sloat Room – Atrium Building – 99 West 10th Avenue May 23, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, John Lawless, President; Anne Marie Levis, Randy Hledik, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio member; Susan Muir, Allen Lowe, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department staff. ABSENT: Phillip Hudspeth, I. PUBLIC COMMENT Commissioner Lawless convened the meeting at 11:33 am. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, urged caution regarding nodes and mixes use areas in general. He said each of the nodes was very special and needed to be individually assessed. He raised concern with any overlay zones that generally applied to all nodes. II. APPROVAL OF MARCH 14, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Hledik noted that in item 5a Mr. Lowe had mentioned Chambers Focus Group meetings and not neighborhood association meetings. Commissioner Colbath, seconded by Commissioner Hledik, moved to approve the minutes of March 14, 2005. The motion passed unanimously. III. WORK SESSION: Chambers Infill/Redevelopment Code Kurt Yeiter called attention to the growth management policies posted on the wall of the Sloat Room. He said when the growth management ordinance was adopted Mayor Torrey had stressed the importance of achieving a balance between policies on a case by case basis. He said the work session for the planning commission had been scheduled significantly before the public hearing so it could begin discussing the balance between infill and preserving neighborhood character. Mr. Yeiter noted that the public hearing on the Chambers node would be on June 28 but stressed that staff wanted to have some guidance from the commission before the public hearing. Allen Lowe said the project focused on residential infill rather than redevelopment but noted that the project was also completed in a spirit of experimentation while attempting to address the variety of conditions found in Eugene. He said specific area planning was found to be very expensive and took a long time to achieve. He said that the “top down” approach represented by the nodal overlay zone process had been resisted by the community. He said the current approach was a responsive plan to the issues of the neighborhood. He stressed that the plan was a draft and would be a draft until it was adopted by the City Council. He said the commission would receive a final draft one week before the June public hearing. He said questions had arisen about the citizen involvement portion of the plan and noted that a copy of the adopted citizen involvement program for the project were included in the packet. He introduced Greg Brokaw and John Rowell who were the consultants working on the Chambers Plan. Greg Brokaw distributed a summary of the current and proposed standards for the Chambers area. John Rowell said the study area was bounded by 7th and 13th avenues north to south and Polk and Garfield Streets on the east and west respectively. He showed aerial photos of the area from the 1940s through the 1960s. He noted that the blocks had filled out with single family dwellings. He showed examples of the kind of infill development that had been done through the 1990s in the area. Mr. Rowell said, currently, infill development in the area included duplex and triplex developments that had raised concerns about compatibility among area residents. He noted that this process had resulted in lots of interaction with area residents. He said the CAFHN group, in particular, had been instrumental in providing key information about the neighborhood, particularly the ETN area. He said a visual preference survey had been done to help define/identify issues for residential and commercial compatibility. He cited local compatibility issues such as density, building height, and lot size. He said the original grant required clear and objective codes, adjustment processes, and guidelines for design review. Mr. Rowell said there was a mix of zones in the area including R-1, R-2, GO, C-1, C-2, R-3 and R-4. He said that most compatibility issues came out of the R-2 zone. He said area residents identified very few compatibility issues with the C-2 zone and stressed again that the bulk of the issues were directed at the areas zoned for R-2 development. He showed an aerial photo of the R-2 portion of the neighborhood. He said the characteristics of the R-2 zoned areas included walkability, small lots, gabled roofs, and clearly defined entrances. He said the issue at the center of things was compatibility but noted that the current R-2 zoning, for all practical purposes, meant that the area would be subject to extensive redevelopment. He said the consultants had initially focused on redevelopment as an end goal but had refocused their efforts on infill following the public input provided through the visual preference survey. He said that the consultants report proposed new form-based standards that address density, maximum building height, setbacks and maintaining the character of the neighborhood. He stressed that the character of the dwellings in the neighborhood needed to be maintained and mentioned various features that govern neighborhood character. He noted that the consultants’ proposal did not preclude some variety in building style but said an effort should be made to maintain the basic characteristics of the neighborhood. Gary McNeel said pedestrian movements should not be impeded in the neighborhood. He stressed that traffic cut through impacts should be minimized to help maintain pedestrian safety. He cited excessive queuing on Chambers Street as a cause of cut-through traffic in the general area. He said 7th Avenue and Chambers Street also had a high incidence of accidents and mentioned that the plan suggested that refuge islands for pedestrians be constructed. He said pedestrian activity at 11th and Chambers was high and suggested a separated westbound to south-bound left turn at that location. He noted that this would help traffic movement but would only indirectly help pedestrians. He said the recommendation for 13th and Garfield was to paint a striped pedestrian crosswalk on the west side. He noted that there was currently no signal on that intersection. MINUTES—Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 2 Mr. McNeel said two of the city initiatives were short term. He said a median island at 11th and Chambers would address the problem of finding a gap in traffic going in both directions. He said they had been applied at other areas in the city with some success. Mr. McNeel said 12th Avenue was also being looked at for improvements. He said 12th and 15th Avenue were both popular bicycle routes and staff were proposing installing median refuges for cyclists at 12th and Chambers. Mr. McNeel said staff had also been reviewing a two way conversion on 11th Avenue between Chambers and Garfield and were proposing that that 2-way conversion be formally studied for implementation. He said two-way conversion would increase access for businesses located in that section of 11th Avenue. In response to a question from Commissioner Duncan regarding whether the data studies that supported the idea of one way traffic in the past, Mr. McNeel said a one way traffic grid was a 1950’s era traffic management concept emphasizing automobile movements. He said traffic signal phasing was easier with one way streets. He said the one way streets had been implemented in the 1950s and 1960s when the city had been moving to electronic traffic signals. Mr. Lowe added that signal timing was focused on the maximum efficiency of moving cars. In response to a question from Commissioner Colbath regarding whether there was an out-bound signal plan and would the new plan be more favorable to the traffic situation, Mr. McNeel said the plan would not help the out-bound movement as much as helping the circulation between Garfield and Chambers Streets. In response to a question from Mike Sullivan regarding whether the suggestion to eliminate the left turn off of Chambers on to 11th Avenue was a fundamental piece of the plan, Mr. McNeel said it was a potentiality. He said providing two southbound through lanes would help eliminate the cueing problem on Chambers. Mr. Brokaw said density was the big issue in the Chambers area. He reiterated that the zoning of the area would essentially trigger a slow redevelopment of the area. He stressed that the consultants had infill as a goal and not redevelopment. He said their goal was to allow infill but within the context of a primarily detached housing pattern that did not change the character of the neighborhood. He showed photos of housing in the area that could be used as an example for infill housing in the future. He said the proposed standard was a tiered density with 1 unit per lot that was less than 4,500 square feet, two units for lots with between 4,500 and 9,200 square feet and three units for lots with anything above 9,200 square feet. He added that there were other plans such as limiting the maximum size of lots to 13,500 square feet as another way of maintaining neighborhood character. Mr. Brokaw said a typical lot was 56 feet by 160 feet deep. He said the proposed standard was to require a 45 foot minimum frontage with a maximum 13,500 square foot lot maximum. He noted that there was currently no square footage maximum. He showed photo examples of the types of housing he had cited. Mr. Brokaw said the standard, aside from density, was an interior yard slope setback. He said there was concern over houses looming over backyards of other housing. He said height standards were also being proposed at a reduction to 30 feet for infill housing. He said the standards were proposing that highest part MINUTES—Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 3 of the building would be centered on the lot. He said there would be exceptions for dormers and gable ends of certain dimensions. Showing an example of desired infill housing in the neighborhood, Mr. Brokaw reiterated that the proposed standards would direct building height toward the center of the lot. In response to a question from Commissioner Hledik regarding the definition of spring point, Mr. Brokaw said that was the height at which the setback hit 45 degrees. Mr. Brokaw showed photos of existing housing in the area that would meet the requirements of the new plan. In response to a question from Commissioner Belcher regarding whether second story windows would be required to start above waist level, Mr. Brokaw said that was not a required part of the plan. In response to a question from Commissioner Colbath regarding whether dormer windows would negate the proposed setback for second story windows, Mr. Brokaw said the dormers would also have to be setback to the same distance as other windows which was 10 feet. Mr. Brokaw said there was a main dwelling facade requirement for buildings along the street to face the street. In response to a question from Commissioner Belcher regarding whether that would also be true for alley frontage, Mr. Brokaw said it would not. In response to a question from Commissioner Duncan regarding whether there would be a proposal to widen 11th Avenue and whether that would affect proposed setbacks, Mr. Brokaw said 11th Avenue had not been looked at for changing width. Mr. Lowe added that the back of the staff report contained a set of issues related to existing code and standards in the ND overlay zone that had been placed there as possible topics for future discussion. Regarding garage and driveway standards, Mr. Brokaw said this was one of the major issues with neighborhood character and compatibility. He stressed the importance of maintaining the pattern in the neighborhood of narrow driveways, setback garages, and limited garage door size of 9 feet to limit overall garage size. He added that there would be a maximum driveway width of 13 feet. In response to a question from Commissioner Duncan regarding whether one driveway could be shared by two properties, Mr. Brokaw said that had not been considered but said he did not know of anything in the plan that would deny it. Commissioner Duncan asked for staff comment on that possibility of shared driveways. Regarding fencing on corner Lots, Mr. Brokaw said there was a proposal to allow taller fencing in corner lots within the setback. Regarding alleys, Mr. Brokaw said there were currently no standards for buildings or open space in alleys. He said redevelopment in alleys had concentrated on single uses. As an example he showed a photo of a MINUTES—Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 4 driveway on an alley that stretched from property line to property line. He said there needed to be recognition that there was some open space similar to a yard. He suggested a standard of 400 square feet of open space with 25 percent touching the alley. Regarding R-1 alley standards, Mr. Brokaw the proposal was to allow an R-1 secondary unit accessing the alley. He said the consultants were proposing removal of the height restrictions to allow the construction of a dwelling unit above a garage. Regarding C-2 standards, Mr. Brokaw said there were two standards that addressed compatibility with the residential areas. The first standard dealt with the commercial building height limit adjacent to a residential zone. The second addressed blank sidewalls fronting on local streets. He showed photos of commercial development abutting residential development and said the consultants were recommending that ground floor facades should have windows, arcades, colonnades, display windows, entry awnings or other similar features for 50 percent of the wall length. Mr. Brokaw ended his presentation by outlining key policy questions posed in the staff report: • When does existing neighborhood character trump citywide policies for density, lot size and setbacks and to what extent and balance? Mr. Brokaw said this was the main question to consider. • Does this project set a precedent for meeting compatibility goals by lowering density and should it? Mr. Brokaw questioned how compatibility should be defined and what kind of precedent would be set by the answer. • How will regional growth models be affected by the project? • How is the determination made between infill and redevelopment? • Are the proposed ETN standards dense enough to meet policy intentions? Mr. Brokaw said the consultants believed that the proposed standards would result in development that met policy intentions for density. • Will customized neighborhood standards succeed or will they devolve into protectionism and/or weakening of the mixed use program? In response to a question from Commissioner Belcher regarding whether time should be set aside for the resident neighbors at the next work session to provide input, Mr. Lawless said he would like to see an opportunity for getting more input besides testimony. He said he would need to see much more information before being able to have an intelligent conversation. Commissioner Duncan agreed with Commissioner. Lawless and questioned what would happen after the matter had been submitted to the City Council. He raised concern that there was no way to define which MINUTES—Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 5 citizen groups got extra time to provide input. He said allowing one group time meant that other groups would demand time. He said the commission had to decide who got extra time. Commissioner Lawless said he would not feel comfortable deliberating on the recommendation until he was sure he understood the proposals. He said the commission would need to decide what was appropriate to garner the information that was needed. Commissioner Levis said the questions outlined by Mr. Brokaw were central. She suggested that the commissioners answer the 8 questions at the end of the presentation and bring them back to the full commission. She said this would help the commission to understand its various viewpoints. She said the experience gained on this project could be used in other areas to help maximize the time spent at meetings. Commissioner Colbath said she was concerned over setting aside time for a single group. She suggested letting people donate their testimony time, as had been done at previous public hearings, to someone else to create an opportunity for longer testimony without going out of established guidelines. Commissioner Belcher said it was important to allow the neighbors to have a say in the process. He said they had put in an extraordinary amount of work and needed to be allowed to speak at length. Commissioner Duncan agreed but raised concern about setting future precedent for public input. Commissioner Levis stressed the need for fairness. She noted that the hearing for Spring Knoll PUD had spurred unanimous public comments that it was handled in an unfair manner. She acknowledged that the neighbors had put in a lot of time and effort on their data and needed time to present it. She stressed that the hearing was not quasi judicial but legislative and suggested that this allowed more flexibility. Commissioner Hledik said he approved of the idea of giving CAFHN extra time to provide input. He said the commission would be remiss to not allow that time. Commissioner Lawless said expressed his appreciation for all the work done by staff, consultants, and CAFHN. He said he would feel better served if there were not a series of 3 minute sound bytes ahead of well documented information. He stressed his need for enough information to make an informed decision. Commissioner Colbath also expressed her appreciation of the work that CAFHN had done. Mr. Nystrom recommended holding the hearing and then assigning as much time as was needed to allow engagement with CAFHN and any other interested groups after the initial public hearing. Commissioner Lawless expressed his desire to hear from the neighborhood, CAFHN, staff, and consultants but stressed his desire to hear from policy makers on the issue before making a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Duncan stressed the importance of having discussions with the City Council members. He said the last thing he wanted was go one way and then discover the council was in favor of a different viewpoint. MINUTES—Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Lowe said he did not believe that the council would have an opposing viewpoint to the commission but acknowledged that there would be varying opinions. He said it was a question of at what point would the plan begin to violate the intentions of adopted policy. Commissioner Belcher said he wanted answers to the following question from staff: What is the Carrying Capacity Concept for the neighborhood in terms of maximum allowed density and what was the feasible density that the layout of the lots allowed? Mr. Lowe said the carrying capacity concept was represented by the recommended standards before the commission which was no more than three units per lot, and maxim lot sizes of 13,500 square feet. He noted that this was entirely subjective. He stressed that the discussion was over neighborhood values. Commissioner Colbath said she was interested in learning more about carrying capacity. She said she wanted to know more about outcomes and whether goals for density were being met. She asked for feedback from staff on the issue. Mr. Lowe said within two miles of downtown there were certain characteristics that were common to most neighborhoods. He said that generally, those characteristics included a grid street system, pre-World War Two housing, and designations for higher residential densities than currently existed. He said the ETN area was a 14 block area and the impact of applying standards would not make much difference to city- wide densification goals. He said whether or not this process has created a model that would be applied to all older neighborhoods near downtown was a major policy question. Commissioner Levis raised concern with discussing the matter with council partners until the commission had much more information on the matter. Kurt Yeiter said one of the questions imbedded in the report was whether the standards seemed appropriate and whether there was there a quantitative difference between that and other areas near downtown. In response to a question from Commissioner Hledik regarding why the proposed density for the Chambers area was 14 units per acre and not 12, Mr. Lowe said 12 units per acre was a minimum density level established by Council for a mixed use or nodal development area. The 14 unit per acre limits established in the Chambers Reconsidered process was simply an outcome of the exploration of compatibility for a portion of the study area, not for the study area as a whole. Mr. Lowe stressed that this work would not directly result in a nodal development designation for the area. There was an additional body of work that would need to be done before nodal development could be implemented. He said achieving the mandated 12 units per acre was not an objective of the Chambers Reconsidered process. He also reiterated that the nodal development overlay zone was not being sought for the study area. Commissioner Lawless urged commissioners to share any discussions with council members with the rest of the commission. He also urged staff to offer any insight in terms of additional clarity around growth management policies to help keep the plan in context. He added his desire to have a work session after the public hearing with the concerned citizen groups to determine whether another hearing was necessary. MINUTES—Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 7 Mr. Nystrom said the City Council would have a work session on July 20 regarding mixed use. He added that there was a joint meeting tentatively scheduled for July 27. He added that flexibility could be added for deliberation dates if more discussion were needed. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF a. Other Items from Staff There was no discussion. b. Other Items from Commission There was no discussion. The meeting adjourned at 1 pm. (Recorded by Joe Sams) MINUTES—Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 8