Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Tykeson Room–Eugene Public Library–100 West 10th Avenue July 26, 2005 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Jon Belcher, members; Gabe Flock, Susan Muir, Katherine Kappa, Nan Lawrence, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Esther Foss, Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki, Kevin Matthews, Lani Timm, Steve Pringle, Erika Seiferling, Dave Kicks, John Russial, Carol DeFazio, Greg Brokaw, Michael Kresko, Paul Conte, Phillip Carroll, Janice Gotch- all, guests. ABSENT: Anne Marie Levis, Rick Duncan. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT Land Use Code and Zoning Map Amendments (CA 04-5) The following proposed actions are being initiated by the City of Eugene/Eugene City Council. The proposed actions below are the subject of a public hearing before the Eugene Planning Commission: CA 04-5 Consideration of amendments to the Eugene Land Use Code and Zoning Map for the establishment of the Chambers Special Area Zone and application of the Cham- bers Special Area Zone development standards to properties within the boundaries of the zone. Staff: Allen Lowe 682-5113 Ms. Colbath, seconded by Mr. Hudspeth, moved to close the public re- cord and direct staff to incorporate CAHFN recommendations into the final draft document for Planning Commission action. The motion passed unanimously 5:0. SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission July 26, 2005 Page 1 Public Hearing  MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Tykeson Room–Eugene Public Library–100 West 10th Avenue July 26, 2005 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath Vice President; Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Jon Belcher, members; Gabe Flock, Susan Muir, Katherine Kappa, Nan Lawrence, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Esther Foss, Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki, Kevin Matthews, Lani Timm, Steve Pringle, Erika Seiferling, Dave Kicks, John Russial, Carol DeFazio, Greg Brokaw, Michael Kresko, Paul Conte, Phillip Carroll, Janice Gotch- all, guests. ABSENT: Anne Marie Levis, Rick Duncan. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT Land Use Code and Zoning Map Amendments (CA 04-5) The following proposed actions were being initiated by the City of Eugene/Eugene City Council. The proposed actions below are the subject of a public hearing before the Eugene Planning Commission: CA 04-5 Consideration of amendments to the Eugene Land Use Code and Zoning Map for the establishment of the Chambers Special Area Zone and application of the Cham- bers Special Area Zone development standards to properties within the boundaries of the zone. Staff: Allen Lowe 682-5113 Mr. Lawless convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission, and continued the June 28, 2005 public hearing. Mr. Lawless explained the format for the public hearing would vary from the usual format. The goal of the commission was to have a dialogue with the people in the neighborhood, particularly the Chamber Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFNH), in an attempt to reach a middle ground. The commission concurred with Mr. Lawless’ proposal that following formal testimony, the commission and those in attendance would conduct a free form discussion. Jim Spickerman, 975 Oak Street, Suite 800, Eugene, addressed the C-2 parcels west of Garfield Street. His client’s parcel was located at the northwest corner of Garfield Street and West 11th Avenue, along with several other parcels in the north portion of the study area. His client’s parcels were included in the study area due to traffic and pedestrian crossing concerns, although, based upon the text of the code, he did not believe it was the intent that commercial standards be applied to those parcels. The text addressed MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission July 26, 2005 Page 1 Public Hearing the situation of commercial use interfacing with residential use, and had requirements regarding facades and building height for commercial buildings, although the code itself did not impose limits. Referring to page A-4, number 6, of the staff report, Mr. Spickerman urged the Planning Commission to follow the staff recommendation that tax lot 1700, assessor map 17-04-36-23, as well as other parcels which shared the same characteristics as tax lot 1700, assessor map 17-04-36-23, zoned for commercial use within the study area, be removed from Draft Map 9.3055. Carol De Fazio, 1437 West 10th Avenue, identified herself as a member of the CAHFN steering committee. She addressed the number of dwellings per lot, and related standards such as alley access on the lots. She said the proposals from CAHFN, consultants, and staff were virtually identical. There had been substantial public support for the standards, including the Home Builders Association of Lane County, the Friends of Eugene, and the Eugene Tree Foundation. Ms. De Fazio said the Eugene City Council unanimously adopted a motion last week directing the City Manager to incorporate opportunity siting as a primary strategy for achieving density targets in mixed use centers. She said the motion’s definition of opportunity- siting specifically referenced strategies to protect existing neighborhoods, including using opportunity siting instead of blanket zoning that permitted multiple units on all multi-use parcels. She asserted that the City Council clearly stated its support for what CAHFN and staff had proposed in this area. Both CAHFN and staff had almost identical proposals to allow alley access only lots as a means to increase density above the levels specified by the dwellings per lot standards. Effectively any lots that bordered an alley would be able to be partitioned to allow one additional unit on the parcel’s front area. The alley access only lot standards had been carefully crafted to encourage affordable home ownership and discourage destabilizing development. The only remaining differences between the staff and the CAHFN proposals were critical elements of the building height and setback standards that needed to be resolved. Managing the intensity of development was by far the most important standard to protect neighborhood stability and character. Specific lot sizes required for different numbers of dwellings and other related elements of the standard had been carefully carved out as part of the Chambers Revisited project. Ms. De Fazio said a rare win in Eugene land use processes had been achieved, in that residents, staff, consultants, citizens outside of the Chambers area, advocacy organizations on both ends of the political spectrum, and the City Council were all in broad agreement on the proposal as presented. She asked that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the common staff and CAHFN proposed standards to the City Council. Paul Conte, 1461 West 10th Avenue, identified himself as a member of the CAHFN steering committee. He addressed the issues of height, scale and setbacks for structures in the rear of lots. Mr. Conte made several points: • CAHFN remained committed to a collaborative solution, noting that CAHFN was not insisting that the CAHFN solution be the one that was adopted, and had been working heroically toward that end. Mr. Conte referred to a handout entitled, “CAHFN Recommendations S-C Chambers Special Area Zone Development Standards Revised July 25, 2005.” He noted that the draft document of- fered an alternate approach to existing height and setback standards. The document reflected the exact code language and an example of how a simplified approach could result in a better solu- tion. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission July 26, 2005 Page 2 Public Hearing  Mr. Conte averred that as supportive as CAHFN was to a good solution, it was equally opposed to bad solutions. CAHFN was at a disadvantage because staff had turned down a request to for- mat CAHFN’s proposal in code format. Mr. Conte said the staff proposal contained significant deficiencies in every iteration that staff had attempted to correct that still existed. Conversely, CAHFN had its proposals out early in the process, available to staff and the public. To date, there had been identification of no deficiency by staff or the public. There were disagreements from staff, primarily that the CAHFN proposal was too complicated, but no deficiencies had been identified. • CAHFN spent a lot of time in outreach and education, and there was a broad understanding and public support of the proposal. Mr. Conte noted there had been no public testimony in opposition to the CAHFN proposal, while there was substantial opposition to the staff proposal by residents and others. The CAHFN proposal had professional, albeit limited expert testimony from a University of Ore- gon (UO) architecture professor, and the manager of a local design/build firm, who said the CAHFN proposal was easier to understand than the staff proposal. Although staff had claimed this was not the case, they had presented no testimony to support the claim, nor provided an ex- planation for why that was the case. Mr. Conte said there were two proposals before the Planning Commission, the CAHFN proposal that had every category of criteria stacked in its favor. He asked what it would mean if we came out of this process with that kind of input and a suitable proposal was not the outcome of the pro- cess because staff had a privileged place at the table. He expressed hope that a solution acceptable to all parties could be achieved. Esther Foss, 1457 West 10th Avenue, Eugene, identified herself as a member of CAHFN, noting that she had contributed her extensive architectural background to define the CAHFN standards. She opined that resolution had been achieved on many issues. She addressed unresolved issues between the two proposals for the Chambers Special Area Zone. • Mass and height were important driving forces that defined standards that preserved established neighborhoods. She said it was important to understand the CAHFN position about the implicit difference between the public, front of parcels, and the private, rear portion of parcels. She said the staff recommendations allowed for equal sized structures anywhere on a parcel, while CAHFN proposed that a larger structure be allowed in the front half of a parcel, while restricting smaller structures on the rear of a parcel. One of the pivotal differences between the staff and CAHFN proposals was CAHFN’s intent to protect the privacy of real property, not for the owners who choose to build on their property, but for those neighbors and owners who did not. • Slope setback was another difference between the staff and CAHFN proposals. • Gable end structures at the rear of the property were another CAHFN concern. The CAHFN proposal only allowed gable ends perpendicular to the front property line to avoid tall walls at the side property line. Furthermore, the CAHFN proposal required the tallest portion of the gable end site towards the center of the parcel rather than to one or the other side property line. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission July 26, 2005 Page 3 Public Hearing Ms. Foss submitted written testimony. Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki, 1025 Taylor Street, Eugene, said the Chambers Reconsidered Project was an ongoing process, of which this was one step. He made addressed the following issues: • Adopting the proposed CAHFN, staff and consultants development standards for the ETN, R-2, would be advantageous, to clear the hurdle and move on to the multi-use aspect of the Chambers Special Area Zone, especially when considering the City Council’s recent unanimous vote on op- portunity-siting. • The commercial focus group, in which he participated, paid for with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) funding, asked to have the standards that CAHFN had been working on adopted now, and consider the C-2 standards as a separate process. The transportation aspects of developing the C-2 zone, especially along the West 11th Avenue corridor between Chambers Street and Garfield Street, could further be discussed. • By cleaning up the process and narrowing the scope, a clearer vision could be presented regard- ing without compromising what had already been achieved. He thanked the Planning Commis- sion for its work, noting that everyone had the same goal. He proposed that a process similar to that used for the Natural Resources Inventory be used for the Chambers Reconsidered Project, in which the Planning Commission and City Council voted to split the process and get it going. Kevin Matthews, identified himself as representing the Friends of Eugene. He said he and the Friends of Eugene supported the CAHFN standards and there needed to be good reasons for going with something different. Nodal development was a city wide issue, and it was important for staff, the Planning Commission and City Council to listen to a neighborhood and make it happen. He suggested that the Planning Commission should think about the value of making the neighborhood happy, thus building trust with the community. Mr. Lawless proposed that the commission identify and isolate the debatable issues, and ask those present to identify issues that had not been adequately addressed. Mr. Yeiter introduced staff: Gabriel Flock, Acting Principle Planner for the Land Use Section; Katharine Kappa, Land Use Analyst, Building and Permit Services staff, who enforced code when people applied for building permits; Catherine Brotherton, from the City Attorney’s Office. Mr. Yeiter said land use issues were entering a new era with the 2004 passage of Ballot Measure 37. The density standards proposed by both CAHFN and staff were less than those permitted in R-1. Such a zone change to R-1 would require a change to the Metro Plan. Mr. Lawless asked CAHFN for a presentation on their proposal. Mr. Conte spoke on behalf of CAHFN, and explained how the CAHFN process had worked. He said there had been a consensus of the steering committee members on several key issues: • The most recent staff proposal had reduced the maximum height of structures closest to the street to a 20 foot midpoint, while the CAHFN proposal had a maximum center point of 27 feet, which were very close. • The staff proposal that would not allow large dormers on the back of houses was cumbersome to MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission July 26, 2005 Page 4 Public Hearing  understand and enforce. CAHFN could support the proposal if this was not included. • CAHFN was concerned about dormers on the back of lots. Staff and the consultant disagreed that the essential character of the lots. • The interior of the lots, in scale and coverage, with large scale tree canopy, allowed collective green space that provided a feeling of openness, and needed to be protected. If this is not pro- tected, the neighborhood would be devastated. This needed a solution. • CAHFN noted form in the neighborhood consisted of smaller structures in the back and larger structures in the front. The way to achieve that would be to designate extended setbacks that would open up common green space areas. • The focus group work was not quite completed, and resulted in the code being patched, while the model was not fixed, resulting in a loophole that allowed gables to face the side. That could re- sult in huge gables facing neighbors’ houses. A remedy to that problem resulted in a maximum height restriction. The current staff proposal that could result in a problem on the back of a lot that allowed greater mass and height. • The current staff proposal was complicated, and both staff and CAHFN proposals had unintended consequences. • CAHFN proposed removing incentives to build structures that were not compatible with the character of the neighborhood. • A key element would be establishing a line a 60 feet from the front of the property line of a parcel that faced the street and had street access, allowing higher walls on the front of the property and lower walls in the rear, which would allow Cape Cod shaped structures that were larger in the front and smaller in the rear. That style structure would cover most of what both CAHFN and the staff wanted. • Affordable housing was related to the alley access issue, and he supported alley access as a tool to provide affordable housing. Mr. Hledik asked if an average or median back yard depth had been determined through the CAHFN analysis. Mr. Conte replied that information was not available, but lot size information was available. CAHFN had looked at how structures were located in relation to a line 60 feet from the front of the property line. He added that there were two typical kinds of lot, small square lots, 50 feet by 50 feet; and rectangular lots, between 50 and 60 feet wide, and between 120 and 140 feet long. Houses tended to be in the front of the square lots, while the rectangular lots provided the open space. Mr. Hledik asked staff if back yard setbacks occurred in R-1 zones. Mr. Yeiter replied the setback was five feet. Mr. Hledik asked CAHFN how much its latest proposal would reduce the size of the building that could have been built had the maximum density been permitted. He stated that the Planning Commission was struggling with densification versus livability. Mr. Conte said CAHFN did not have the figure Mr. Hledik was asking for. He said Commissioner Rick Duncan had asked him for a sketch of what could be built on a typical lot, following the June 28, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Conte said a 3,500 square foot structure could be built on the small lots. He said CAHFN was satisfied that large enough structures could be built to handle dwellings that would be allowed under the limitations in the CAHFN proposal. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission July 26, 2005 Page 5 Public Hearing Addressing the density versus livability concerns, Mr. Conte said CAHFN asserted that people would not want to live permanently in a neighborhood that had a high rate of transient residents, cycling in and out of cheap apartments. He added that the neighborhood would need major public safety attention if nothing changed and the neighborhood was forced into accepting a higher density and more multi-unit buildings. Mr. Lawless sketched a diagram of a house to facilitate the discussion. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Yeiter said there was not much difference between the various draft proposals. Mr. Conte added that staff and CAHFN had identical proposals related to alley access, with the exception of scale, noting that massing and height in the rear of buildings was a big issue and remained a concern. In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Conte said agreement had been reached with staff regarding dormers. Some of the agreed upon elements included any residence could have a maximum of two dormers, with certain criteria, that addressed maximum width and height, and not penetrating into neighboring property. In response to a question from Mr. Lawless, Mr. Conte said two significant issues remained, lot coverage and prevention of lot gerrymandering. Mr. Conte proposed that vehicle oriented surfaces limited to 20 percent of the lot would provide adequate parking for residents. CAHFN supported adjustments to non-conforming uses. Although staff had said such a requirement would be too hard to manage, he urged the Planning Commission not to be diverted by the behavior of scofflaws who parked illegally. He suggested that parking be addressed when the need arose. Mr. Conte said open space was addressed in the code, noting that more than 50 percent of a lot could not be covered with a structure and attached carport over which housing had been built. After a brief discussion, Ms. Kappa read directly from the applicable city code that addressed the issue. She asserted that the only reason for lot aggregation was to allow larger multi-unit structures to be built. Mr. Conte noted that lot line adjustments had been used to allow gerrymandering that resulted in intrusive developments. Such developments led to destabilization in established neighborhoods. CAHFN wished to remove the motivation for lot line adjustments that lead to gerrymandering. People who could contribute to neighborhood stability could identify bad developments, and would avoid them. Mr. Lawless asked how the CAHFN proposals would translate into other traditional neighborhoods. Mr. Conte replied the CAHFN proposal applied only to the ETN. Ms. Colbath said aggregation had appropriate uses city wide, although perhaps not in the ETN. Shewas not aware of any code language that required a specific number of square feet, or number of bedrooms and/or bathrooms for a residential unit. She added that the density concern was not related to the volume of a structure. Mr. Lawless asked if there were potential difficulties if other development standards were applied. Mr. Conte said gerrymandering, not putting an additional unit on a property, was the problem, although additional units could lead to gerrymandering. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission July 26, 2005 Page 6 Public Hearing Ms. Foss said the CAHFN proposal included a maximum density limitation that limited the number of square feet of structure allowed per lot. Mr. Conte said CAHFN was not talking about design review standards or block plans. CAHFN would like to see duplexes on a poster child lot, and added that row houses beyond three units were prohibited. Janice Gotchall stated that the neighborhood character and masses of row houses were incompatible, averring that neighbors were willing to accept density that did not damage the neighborhood character. Mr. Yeiter said the technical aspects of lot line adjustments were described on page B-10 of the agenda packet. Regarding lot standards, Mr. Conte said CAHFN agreed with most of the staff proposals. Mr. Lawless opined the Planning Commission and CAHFN were close to making good faith effort to reach consensus. As he understood the City Council direction, the concept was not to be broadly applied to address citywide issues. Mr. Belcher expressed concern about infill stealing peoples backyards, and asked how would we find room for 50,000 people in next 15 years, noting these issues could not be solved independently. The following comments were made by those present: • Neighbors were not opposed to increased density in the Chambers Reconsidered area, but it was important to identify prime development lots, as proposed by the commercial and residential fo- cus groups. Neighbors were not a bunch of NIMBYs, but felt there was not room to increase den- sity in a residential R-2 zoned area that consisted of one and one-half story bungalows, unlike some other residential neighborhoods that also contained two story residences. Was there a change to have a variance in the neighborhood that would restrict houses to no more than one and one-half stories. • There was confusion about the property value for owners of rental units. • Staff had indicated in preliminary meetings that this project was for a limited area and it would be a customized research project that was not to be used elsewhere. Now it appeared that staff would be unhappy if the same process could not be used with other projects, and it appeared that the administration was trumping the work of neighbors. It was important to maintain the charac- ter of the neighborhood. • Asked that the commission not allow density to drive volume in structure size. • Liked diversity in the neighborhood, and appreciated that not all of the houses looked the same. • CAHFN’s interest was in trying to preserve permeable surface on residential lots. With houses selling for $400,000 in the neighborhood, people would try to maximize their investment, by in- creasing density, thus creating social and economic issues. • The Eugene Tree Foundation was concerned about greenspace issues such as preserving suffi- cient planting space, limiting building size and paved surfaces. Parking drove so many develop- ment issues. The Eugene Tree Foundation supported the CAHFN proposal. Mr. Yeiter said there was no difference between rental and ownership as defined in Ballot Measure 37. Ballot Measure 37 allowed a claim to be filed for compensation or a waiver if new requirements lowered the value of property in certain circumstances. It did not affect neighboring properties other than MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission July 26, 2005 Page 7 Public Hearing allowances under city code compensation practices. He added that state law addressed the single property, while city code allowed income properties to be considered. Ms. Muir understood that there was a simple solution before the commission and wanted to take advantage of the incorporating the work of CAHFN. Mr. Yeiter directed the attention of the Planning Commission to a July 26, 2005 memorandum from J. Norton Cabell regarding “Chambers Reconsidered” that had been distributed at the meeting and was entered into the record. Mr. Yeiter also entered a July 22, 2005 email to Mr. Lowe, from CAHFN Steering Committee, subject “Request for City Council ‘Opportunity Siting motion” into the record. Mr. Flock stated that according to the definition of a development site, there was no requirement for a property owner to take formal action to aggregate properties and the city was not included in aggregating actions. Mr. Conte said development regularly occurred across lines in common ownership Mr. Yeiter said the City Attorney would perform an analysis of risk issues related to Ballot Measure 37. Ms. Colbath said other areas of city had expressed interest in this example, citing Walnut and the River Road/Santa Clara areas as examples. She asked if the staff proposal been vetted through the City Attorney Ms. Brotherton said the staff proposal had not been analyzed by the City Attorney’s office. Ms. Muir said the Goal 5 work had provided an opportunity to look at things in a new way. She hoped to do the same thing here. There was much that was unknown related to Ballot Measure 37. Mr. Lawless said the work done with the CAFHN neighbors had been enriching and provided views not previously considered. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Yeiter said staff was anxious to move onto other projects, and recommended closing the record so that decisions could be made. He said the intent was to provide flexibility in working on the issues. Mr. Conte said based upon the discussion and the consensus reached between CAFHN and the Planning Commission, he concurred that the record should be closed. There had been an enormous amount of citizen involvement that had resulted in a great project. Mr. Lawless noted consensus from the Planning Commission to close the record and move towards a decision. Mr. Belcher said his need to have a city wide perspective as a Planning Commissioner differed from his former role in his neighborhood association. As a Planning Commissioner, he needed to protect the whole city, and was concerned about the implications of the residential lands study. Mr. Yeiter said the Planning Commission and City Council had viewed the Chambers project as a pilot MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission July 26, 2005 Page 8 Public Hearing project in nodal development that was an experiment tailored to this neighborhood. If this project was to be precedent setting, the buildable lands study was necessary. Ms. Muir said the residential lands analysis would not to be done until next periodic review. Ms. Muir sated that she was following Ballot Measure 37 claims around the state. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki and Ms. Seiferling thanked staff and the Planning Commission for their open process. Ms. Colbath, seconded by Mr. Hudspeth, moved to close the public re- cord and direct staff to incorporate CAHFN recommendations into the final draft document for Planning Commission action. The motion passed unanimously 5:0. Mr. Lawless closed the public hearing. He thanked everyone for their efforts on the Chambers Reconsid- ered Project. Ms. Muir reminded commissioners of the joint meeting with the City Council on July 27, 2005. The next Planning Commission meeting would be August 8, 2005. Mr. Lawless adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:10 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2005\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc050726ph.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission July 26, 2005 Page 9 Public Hearing