Planning Commission

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 hours notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours notice. To arrange for these services, contact the Planning Division at 541-682-5675. MONDAY, JUNE 24, 2013 – REGULAR MEETING (11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 11:30 a.m. I. PUBLIC COMMENT The Planning Commission reserves 10 minutes at the beginning of this meeting for public comment. The public may comment on any matter, except for items scheduled for public hearing or public hearing items for which the record has already closed. Generally, the time limit for public comment is three minutes; however, the Planning Commission reserves the option to reduce the time allowed each speaker based on the number of people requesting to speak. 11:40 a.m. II. ENVISION EUGENE: DOWNTOWN/MIXED USE AMENDMENTS – ACTION Staff: Alissa Hansen, 541-682-5508 12:10 p.m. III. OUTSTANDING ISSUES BIN: ZONE TRANSITIONS Planning Commissioner: John Jaworski 12:45 p.m. IV. OUTSTANDING ISSUES BIN: SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS Planning Commissioner: Steve Baker 1:15 p.m. V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission C. Learning: How are we doing? Commissioners: Steven Baker; Jonathan Belcher; Rick Duncan; Randy Hledik, Chair; John Jaworski; Jeffery Mills; William Randall, Vice Chair  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 24, 2013 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Alissa Hansen, Planning Division Subject: Final Deliberation/Recommendation: Package of land use code and Metro Plan/TransPlan amendments to facilitate downtown and mixed use development (City Files CA 13-1 and MA 13-1) ACTION REQUESTED Deliberate and provide a final recommendation to City Council on a package of land use code amendments and a concurrent Metro Plan/TransPlan amendment related to facilitating downtown and mixed use development. BRIEFING STATEMENT As part of Envision Eugene, the City Council initiated amendments to facilitate desired mixed use development for downtown, along transit corridors and in commercial areas. These amendments are also necessary as part of the city’s strategy to accommodate the city's 20 year need for commercial jobs and multi-family housing inside the current urban growth boundary (UGB). These code/plan amendments cover eight topic areas: 1. Housing in Commercial Zones 2. Surface Parking Limitation in C-3 Zone 3. Large Commercial Facilities Standards in Downtown 4. Commercial Landscaping Standards 5. Nodal Development Overlay Zone 6. Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone 7. Traffic Impact Analysis within Downtown 8. General Commercial Standards (housekeeping) BACKGROUND The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 14, 2013 to hear testimony about the proposed amendments, and met on June 3, 2013 to deliberate and provide a recommendation to City Council. During deliberations, the Planning Commission tentatively voted to support recommending approval of the amendments related to surface parking limitation in C-3 Zone (#2), commercial landscaping standards (#4), and the general commercial standards (housekeeping) (#8). The Planning Commission asked staff to follow up on potential changes to the remaining five amendments. The focus of the Planning Commission’s June 17, 2013 meeting was the amendment pertaining to the traffic impact PC Agenda - Page 1 analysis (#7). The remaining topics will be covered at today’s meeting. The status of each topic is addressed below. 1. Housing in Commercial Zones: Related to the amendment to allow housing on the ground floor of a building in the C-2 Community Commercial zone, the Planning Commission asked staff to return with options to ensure that no new standalone single-family dwellings or duplexes could be created in the C-2 zone. That language is provided below. Red= originally proposed new text Blue = new text Highlight= previously proposed to be deleted Table 9.2160 Commercial Zone Land Uses and Permit Requirements C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 GO Residential Dwellings One-Family Dwelling P(6) P(6) P(7) Rowhouse (One-Family on Own Lot Attached to S(6) S(6) P Adjacent Residence on Separate Lot with Garage or Carport Access to the Rear of the Lot) Duplex (Two-Family Attached on Same Lot) P(6) P(6) P(7) P Two-Family Detached on Same Lot P(6) P(6) P(7) Tri-plex (Three-Family Attached on Same Lot) (See EC S(6) S(6) S S 9.5500) Four-plex (Four-Family Attached on Same Lot) (See EC S(6) S(6) S S 9.5500) Multiple Family (3 or More Dwellings on Same Lot) (See S(6) S(6) S S EC 9.5500) 9.2161 Special Use Limitations for Table 9.2160. (6) Residential Use Limitation in C-1 and C-2. Within the Downtown Plan Area as shown on Map 9.2161(6) Downtown Plan Map, residential dwellings are allowed in C-1 and C-2 zones and are not required to use the ground floor of the structure for commercial or non-residential purposes. (a) Except for the Downtown Plan Area, All residential dwellings are allowed in the C-1 zone and one and two-family dwellings in the C-2 zones are allowed if the ground floor of the structure is used for commercial or non- residential purposes according to Table 9.2161 Commercial Uses Requirements in Mixed-Use Residential Developments in C-1 Zones. (b) For lots zoned C-1 within the S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone boundaries as shown on Figure 9.3605, the maximum number of dwellings per lot is specified at EC 9.3625(8) and 9.3626(1). PC Agenda - Page 2  Table 9.2161 Commercial Uses Requirements in Mixed-Use Residential Developments In C-1 Zones Not Within the Downtown Plan Area (See Map 9.2161(6) Downtown Plan Map) C-1 C-2 Commercial Uses Requirements in Mixed-Use Residential Developments Minimum Percent of Building Street Frontage in 80% 60% Commercial Use. Building street frontage shall be measured along the length of the building at the ground level within the maximum front yard setback. As used herein, “commercial” includes any non-residential use occupying a space at least 15 feet deep from the street facade of the building, excluding parking areas and garages. Minimum Percent of Ground Floor Area in Commercial Use. 80% 20% (7) Residential Use Limitation in C-3. Within the Downtown Plan Area as shown on Map 9.2161(6) Downtown Plan Map, a structure may include one and two dwellings if 80 percent of the ground floor of the structure is used for commercial or non-residential purposes. (78) (Renumber remaining list/reconcile table) Related to the amendment to allow one or two apartments in an upper floor of a commercial building in the C-3 Major Commercial zone, the Planning Commission supported recommending approval to the City Council. 2. Surface Parking Limitation in C-3 Zone: The Planning Commission supported recommending approval of the proposed language provided in the May 14, 2013 public hearing materials (7 to 0 vote). 3. Large Commercial Facilities Standards in Downtown: The Planning Commission supported recommending approval of the proposed language (specific to the Downtown Plan area) provided in the May 14, 2013 public hearing materials (6 to 1 vote). The Planning Commission expressed a willingness to consider expanding the exemption from certain standards to a greater area, depending on the outcome of the Traffic Impact Analysis/Level of Service discussion. However, given that the Planning Commission supported the boundaries of the TIA/LOS amendment as proposed (the Downtown Plan Area with the exception of the EWEB properties), staff is not recommending any expansion of the exemption of these standards beyond the boundaries of the Downtown Plan. 4. Commercial Landscaping Standards: Regarding the amendment related to the minimum landscape area requirement, the Planning Commission supported recommending approval to reduce the requirement to 5 percent (from 10 percent) for C-2 zoned property within the Downtown Plan Area (7 to 0 vote). Regarding the amendment related to required bed widths for landscaping in front yard setbacks, the Planning Commission supported recommending approval to remove the requirement (7 to 0 vote). PC Agenda - Page 3 5. Nodal Development Overlay Zone 6. Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone Related to the proposed adjustment review criteria for both overlay zones, the Planning Commission requested that staff return with new language to clarify applicability of the criteria. Because the proposed new adjustment review criteria for these two overlay zones is identical to that previously adopted for the Downtown Plan area, staff reviewed the outcome of the application of the criteria to previous adjustment review applications within downtown. Based on this review, staff found that the criteria are being interpreted as originally intended, and found no evidence of confusion or lack of clarity in their application. Additionally, for code administration purposes, staff finds it preferable to have identical criteria rather than slight wording differences that could change intent or applicability. As such, staff recommends keeping the criteria language consistent with that applied to the downtown area. 7. Traffic Impact Analysis: At the June 17, 2013 meeting, the Planning Commission supported recommending approval of the traffic impact analysis exemption/level of service reduction for the Downtown Plan area, with the exception of the properties covered by the EWEB Master Plan (3 to 2 vote). 8. General Commercial Standards (housekeeping): The Planning Commission supported recommending approval of the proposed language provided in the May 14, 2013 public hearing materials (7 to 0 vote). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the testimony and the staff recommended revisions, and provide any suggested revisions before recommending approval of the package of amendments. FOR MORE INFORMATION Alissa Hansen, 541-682-5508 or alissa.h.hansen@ci.eugene.or.us ATTACHMENTS None **Please bring the meeting materials from the May 14, 2013, June 3, 2013 and June 17, 2013 Planning Commission meetings. These are available for download via the web at: http://www.eugene-or.gov/AgendaCenter/Planning-Commission-2 PC Agenda - Page 4  ZONE TRANSITIONS June 17, 2013 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: John Jaworski, Planning Commissioner Subject: Zone Transitions - Ensure compatible transition from low-density development to more intense residential land uses. Consideration of transition and buffer zones or a transition step zone to maintain livability and neighborhood character for R-1 or special area zones (S-C Chambers Special Area Zone, S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone) impacted by more intensive residential development (Specifically R-2, R-3, R-4, PUD developments). Commercial and Industrial zones abutting low density residential zones or infill development other than residential are beyond the scope of this discussion. Problem Identification: The problems associated with more intense residential development impacting low-density residential zones, whether they be on large tracks of land or infill development, are design related impacts such as: incompatible building mass, incompatible building height, inadequate setbacks, lack of screening, allowance for balconies facing abutters and impacts on solar access. The more intense developments also have negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood, and degradation of livability for the abutting residents. Residents are impacted by violation of their privacy, specifically on abutting development on their back lots. Many new developments often request variances or adjustments to many of the current code requirements designed to protect abutting property owners, which the code permits. Additionally, some community concerns voiced by abutters, with the promise that they will be addressed, are not enforced when the project is built. Example of backyard impact: PC Agenda - Page 5 First three the setback is 16 feet with balconies. Setback is 20 feet without balconies Current policies and Code Provisions: The city of Eugene does have policies, as part of Envision Eugene, to improve land use efficiency and increase density to accommodate the 20 year need for multi-family housing inside the current urban growth boundary (UGB). Specifically, Envision Eugene projects 1,600 multi-family homes inside the UGB by increasing the likelihood of redevelopment in the downtown, along transit corridors and in core commercial areas. These policies, although warranted, reinforce the need for code revisions to protect R-1 low density residential areas. Currently the city of Eugene code does not have any policies related to transition or buffer zones nor are either defined in the current code. A sampling of other community’s use of transition or buffer zones revealed: • There were very few communities found that use these concepts. • The definitions of a transition or buffer zone are very diverse. Several communities reference the terms and use them only in their broadest sense. • In some cases the community considers a transition zone to be a gradation of density i.e. R1 to R2 to R3 and then possibly mixed-use then commercial, etc. The zones themselves are considered transitional but where they abut each other is not referenced as a transition. Typically setbacks are applied between zones. PC Agenda - Page 6 • Buffer zones are usually used to separate residential uses from commercial and industrial and in some cases agricultural. Buffer zones are established to address: noise, traffic, possible toxins, and smell associated with non-residential uses. The typical buffer zone is quite wide separating the different uses and usually an open space with the use of existing land features as natural buffers when possible. • Within the buffer zone communities have differences in code around what is allowed. Some communities encourage natural open space, parks and community recreational facilities. Others communities permit low-density residential. What is allowed varied depending on the abutting use. In looking at sample buffer and transition zone related code from several communities as possible models, I conclude that what we need in Eugene is not really either of these, because they don’t address the issues we are most concerned about. However the transition gradation concept should be considered when establishing new zones within the city and buffer zone concepts may have a role as the city expands and establishes new zones or performs master planning for new undeveloped areas. Utilization of natural land features in those areas could be established as buffers. We need code customized to fit our needs and address the issues and concerns expressed in the Problem Identification section above. We can do this by modifying our existing codes setbacks, building height and landscaping requirements. The city of Eugene code relies on setbacks and building height with residential development standards that address a reduction of impact on abutting property. The following Table 9.2750 and EC 9.2751 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2750 are code excerpts pertaining to height and setback requirements in the base zones. Table 9.2750 Residential Zone Development Standards (See EC 9.2751 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2750.) R-1 R-1.5 R-2 R-3 R-4 Density (1) Minimum Net Density per Acre No -- 10 units 20 units 20 units Minimum Maximum Net Density per Acre 14 units -- 28 units 56 units 112 units Maximum Building Height (2), (3), (4), (5) Main Building. Includes 30 feet 35 feet 35 feet 50 feet 120 feet Secondary Dwellings Within the Main Building. Accessory Building. Includes 20 feet 20 feet 25 feet 30 feet 30 feet Secondary Dwellings Detached from Main Building (See EC 9.2741(2) (b) if located within 20 feet of property line.) Minimum Building Setbacks (2), (4), (6), (9), (10), (11) PC Agenda - Page 7  Table 9.2750 Residential Zone Development Standards (See EC 9.2751 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2750.) R-1 R-1.5 R-2 R-3 R-4 Front Yard Setback (excluding 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet garages and carports) Front Yard Setback for 18 feet -- 18 feet 18 feet 18 feet Garage Doors and Carports (12) Interior Yard Setback (except 5 feet or -- 5 feet or 5 feet or 5 feet or where use, structure, location minimum minimum minimum minimum is more specifically addressed of 10 feet of 10 feet of 10 feet of 10 feet below)(7) between between between between buildings buildings buildings buildings Interior Yard Setback for 15 feet -- 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Education, Government and Religious Uses. Interior Yard Setback for 10 feet – – – -- Buildings Located on Flag Lots in R-1 Created After December 25, 2002 (See EC 9.2775(5)(b)) Area-specific Interior Yard -- -- -- See (8) See (8) Setback 9.2751 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2750. (2) Maximum building height, minimum building setbacks, and maximum building dimensions may be modified with an approved planned unit development permit. (For planned unit development procedures refer to EC 9.7300 General Overview of Type III Application Procedures and for approval criteria refer to EC 9.8320 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria - General.) (3) Building Height. (a) Except as provided in (b) and (c) below, in the R-3 and R-4 zone, the maximum building height shall be limited to 30 feet for that portion of the building located within 50 feet from the abutting boundary of, or directly across an alley from, land zoned R-1. (b) For that area bound by Patterson Street to the west, Agate Street to the east, East 18th Avenue to the north and East 20th Avenue to the south: 1. In the R-3 zone between 19th and 20th Avenues, the maximum building height is 35 feet. 2. In the R-4 zone west of Hilyard Street, the maximum building height is 65 feet. 3. In the R-4 zone east of Hilyard Street, the maximum building PC Agenda - Page 8  height is: a. 35 feet within the area south of 19th Avenue; b. 50 feet within the half block abutting the north side of 19th Avenue; c. 65 feet within the half block abutting the south side of 18th Avenue. (See Figure 9.2751(3)). (c) For that area bound by Hilyard Street to the west, Kincaid Street to the east, East 13th Alley to the north and East 18th Avenue to the south the maximum building height is 65 feet. (See Figure 9.2751(3)). (d) An additional 7 feet of building height is allowed for roof slopes of 6:12 or steeper in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones. (4) Solar standards may require a more restrictive height limitation and setback requirement, refer to EC 9.2795 Solar Setback Standards. (5) Exceptions to general height restrictions are contained in: (a) EC 9.6715 Height Limitation Areas. (b) EC 9.6720 Height Exemptions for Roof Structures and Architectural Features. (6) Special setback provisions may also apply, see EC 9.6750 Special Setback Standards. (7) Except where buildings abut or share a common wall, the owner of a lot or parcel with an interior yard of less than 5 feet from the adjacent property line must secure and record in the office of the Lane County Recorder a maintenance access easement adjacent to that side of the building. The easement shall provide a 5-foot wide access the entire length of the building and 5 feet beyond both ends, and require a 10-foot separation between buildings on separate lots. The easement shall be on a form provided by the city, shall be approved by city staff, and be subject to a review and payment of a fee set by the city manager. (8) For R-3 and R-4 zoned properties located in the area bound by Hilyard Street to the west, Agate Street to the east, East 19th Avenue to the north and East 20th Avenue to the south and that are abutting or across an alley from R-1 zoned property: (a) The interior yard setback shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the property line abutting or across an alley from R-1 zoned property; and (b) At a point that is 25 feet above finished grade, the setback shall slope at the rate of 7 inches vertically for every 12 inches horizontally away from the property line abutting or across an alley from R-1 zoned property until a point not to exceed allowable building height at EC 9.2751(3)(b). The allowances for setback intrusions provided at EC 9.6745(3) do not apply within the setback described in (a) and (b) above, except that eaves and chimneys are allowed to project into this setback no more than 2 feet. (See Figure 9.2751(8)) PC Agenda - Page 9  (9) Certain building features and uses may intrude into required setback, refer to EC 9.6745 Setbacks - Intrusions Permitted, and EC 9.6750 Special Setback Standards. (10) Except as provided in this subsection (10), no interior setback along the side property lines is required if the buildings abut or share a common wall that conforms to adopted state building codes. A 5 foot setback is required at the end of the row house building, or a minimum of 10 feet between the row house building and any adjacent building. A 5 foot setback is also required along an alley. (11) Alley access parcels shall be subject to the provisions of this section for all yards, including the yard adjacent to the property line separating the alley access parcel from the original parent parcel. Alley access parcels have only interior yard setbacks. There are no front yard setbacks since there is no frontage on a street. (12) The 18 foot setback requirement for garages and carports is measured through the centerline of the driveway from the front property line to either the garage door or to the front most support post of a carport. The Planning Commission reviewed these code amendments and endorsed a step sloped building height for the University Area. Specifically 9.2751 (8) (a) and (b). This code amendment was not city wide in its implementation. This concept can form the basis for addressing many of the problems identified. Code Deficiencies: The code building height standards and setbacks identified in Table 9.2750 and EC 9.2751 in their current form do not address the identified issues. Most R-1 properties are not built to a max of 30 feet. The ones depicted in the above pictures are around 20 feet or less. The impact of a structure 35+ feet in height is overwhelming. The setbacks are also very minimal. Even with a step sloped building as indicated in 9.2751 (8) (b) the allowable building height has too great an impact on abutters privacy, especially with development abutting R-1 rear lots. The requirement for enhanced landscaping as a buffer area between zones is lacking. Additionally, building height maximums can be adjusted resulting in a greater impact. RESIDENTIAL ZONES Zone Max to highest point on roof R-1 Low-Density Residential Zone 30’ (37’ for roof slope of 6:12 or steeper) 20’/27’ Accessory/secondary dwelling unit 15’ for SDU within 20’ of property line R-1.5 Row house Zone 35’ 20’/27’ Accessory/secondary dwelling unit R-2 Medium-Density Residential Zone 35’ (42’ for roof slope of 6:12 or steeper) 25’/32’ Accessory/secondary dwelling unit R-3 Limited High-Density Residential Zone 50’ (57’ for roof slope of 6:12 or steeper) 30’/37’ Accessory/secondary dwelling unit PC Agenda - Page 10 R-4 High-Density Residential Zone 120’ (127’ for roof slope of 6:12 or steeper) 30’/37’ Accessory/secondary dwelling unit • EC 9.6715 Height limitation Areas & EC 9.6720 Height Exemptions apply. • May be modified with PUD • Some height transition and height limitation areas are defined. See EC 9.2751(3) • Solar standards may limit height. See EC 9. 2795. Potential Resolution: 1. Establish a policy that appropriate transitional methods should be considered at all locations where the development or expansions of medium or high-density residential land uses abut low- density residential property (either built or zoned). In general, transitions between different types of intensities of land use should be made gradually, particularly where natural or man-made buffers are not available. 2. Establish a set of clear and objective standards as outlined below which will prevent the negative impacts described in the problem identification section. Privacy: Restrict patios or terraces facing back yards or side yards of R-1 residential. Setbacks: Increase setback to a minimum of 15 feet when medium or high-intensity development abuts R-1 low density property side yards. Increase to 25 feet when abutting R-1 low density rear yards. Ensure solar access of impacted residences. This setback is 20 feet but not stepped This setback is 16 feet with balconies. back in height. Both setback buildings, when viewed from the rear yards in earlier pictures, are too intrusive on the R-1 rear yard abutting property. PC Agenda - Page 11 Building design and height: 1. Utilize a sloped setback for R-2, development abutting R-1 property but set spring point more specifically related to surrounding existing building height rather than 25 feet as indicated in 9.2751 (8) (b) or set spring point to 20 feet. Current code elsewhere in city equal to maximum height of abutting property. 7:12 roof slope referenced in 9.7251 (8) (b) acceptable. 2. Adopt a similar code for R-3 and R-4 development as indicated in 9.7251 (3) (a), which is already city wide for maximum building height abutting R-1, with a sloped building setback similar to R-2. 3. Require that the facades of building are articulating or fragmented to reduce the scale of walls. Neighborhood Involvement: Establish a development review process which is seen as desirable by neighbors impacted by the development with a process for enforcement. Landscaping: Require landscaping which initially restricts view of 15 feet in height with trees or shrubbery that will grow to at least 30 feet. Land features: 1. Promote the retention of stands of trees, natural vegetation, wetlands, stream corridors, and environmentally sensitive areas wherever possible to separate low-density residential development from other more intensive land uses. 2. Where possible, use existing differences in topography to naturally separate low-density developments and other more intensive land uses PC Agenda - Page 12 Buffering and Landscaping: 1. Encouraged creative and extensive use of landscaping and berming techniques for effective buffering of low-density residential uses. 2. Avoid the use of fences as the sole means of providing screening and buffering. Adjustment Review: Restrict adjustment review for those situations where the clear and objective standards cannot be met but the intention to comply is certain, or when a creative or acceptable solution is proposed which meets the intent of compatibility. Limit the number of adjustments permitted before a new application is required. Additional Example: The following example is in the Harlow Neighborhood at the junction of Coburg Rd. and Baily St. It is an R-2 infill development impacting the rear yards of an R-1 area. There are three properties impacted. Both pictures are from front yard fence not rear. Setback is less than 8 feet. PC Agenda - Page 13 SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS IN MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Steven Baker Subject: Ensure that side and rear yard setbacks promote the following: • A reasonable building scale and relationship of one residence to another; • Options for privacy for neighboring properties; and • A reflection of the general building scale of multi-dwelling development in the City's neighborhoods. Problem Identification More intense multifamily development and infill built under the current Eugene Planning Code standards can result in narrow side and rear yard setbacks between adjacent multifamily developments. These standards can result in 3’ to 5’ setbacks on adjacent properties that are long, dark, narrow, and basically useless spaces between adjacent buildings. The narrow spaces that result also sacrifice privacy between neighboring properties and limit the availability of natural light and ventilation to windows that face rear and side yard setbacks. Side and rear yards setbacks in multifamily zones (rowhouse zones can have attached side walls between up to 8 attached units) are currently set based on the minimum separation required between adjacent structures for fire separation. This separation reduces the likelihood of a fire spreading from one multifamily building to an adjacent building. The current minimum side and rear yard setback for a multifamily building from the adjacent property line is 5 feet. It can be reduced further to 3’ with intrusions that can represent a large percentage of the wall. Building with minimum setbacks in current code can result in a narrow space between adjacent multifamily developments between 5 and 10 feet wide running the length of the side and rear yard lot. The most common development pattern is that a fence on the property line runs the length of the side and rear yard property between adjacent buildings, so the space on either side of the fence would be slightly less than 3 to 5 feet in width for the length of the building. The narrow side and rear yard setbacks allowed in multifamily development do not promote options for privacy for neighboring properties. These narrow spaces also limit the availability of natural light and ventilation to windows that face rear and side yard setbacks. A typical lot in an existing neighborhood might be 55-80 feet wide by 80-140 feet long. A multifamily development built on this lot must have windows on side yards and rear yards to meet building code requirements for residential development. Any windows that face narrow and PC Agenda - Page 14 dark side or rear yard setbacks offer limited light and ventilation and may reduce privacy (windows on adjacent buildings within close proximity). An example of this narrow side yard setback that varies from 3 to 5 feet can be found in the new development on the right side located on High Street. PC Agenda - Page 15 This is an example of a narrow side yard setback between adjacent multifamily buildings on East 14th Avenue. In this particular case, no fence separates the properties. PC Agenda - Page 16 Note: These photographs were taken in summer during full sun not in winter under overcast conditions. A further problem exists in multifamily development that does not occur on raw undeveloped land. Many existing Eugene neighborhoods have over time changed from being primarily single- family developments to more intense multifamily housing. In some cases, the housing was built before the area was zoned for multifamily development. In other cases, the allowed zoning may have changed from single-family to multifamily. In addition, the allowed density, height, and other allowed building characteristics in the Eugene code has increased over time for all zones. Most existing single-family development in Eugene is 1, 1-1/2, or 2 stories in height, with the majority of one-story homes. When multifamily development and infill occurs in existing neighborhoods, the new buildings can be quite out of scale from the original single-family developments. New developments in R-3 and R-4 zones can be up to 50 feet and 100 feet respectively. The narrow side and rear yard setbacks allowed in new multifamily development do not promote a reasonable building scale and relationship of one residence to another or promote options for privacy. Below is an example of a new 4-story multifamily building adjacent to older single-story residential development. PC Agenda - Page 17 Current Policies and Code Provisions The following Table 9.2750 and EC 9.2751 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2750 are code excerpts pertaining to height and setback requirements in the base zones. Table 9.2750 Residential Zone Development Standards (See EC 9.2751 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2750.) R-1 R-1.5 R-2 R-3 R-4 Density (1) Minimum Net Density per Acre No -- 10 units 20 units 20 units Minimum Maximum Net Density per Acre 14 units -- 28 units 56 units 112 units Maximum Building Height (2), (3), (4), (5) Main Building. Includes 30 feet 35 feet 35 feet 50 feet 120 feet Secondary Dwellings Within the Main Building. Accessory Building. Includes 20 feet 20 feet 25 feet 30 feet 30 feet Secondary Dwellings Detached from Main Building (See EC 9.2741(2) (b) if located within 20 feet of property line.) Minimum Building Setbacks (2), (4), (6), (9), (10), (11) Front Yard Setback (excluding 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet garages and carports) Front Yard Setback for Garage 18 feet -- 18 feet 18 feet 18 feet Doors and Carports (12) Interior Yard Setback (except 5 feet or -- 5 feet or 5 feet or 5 feet or where use, structure, location is minimum minimum minimum minimum more specifically addressed of 10 feet of 10 feet of 10 feet of 10 feet below)(7) between between between between buildings buildings buildings buildings Interior Yard Setback for 15 feet -- 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Education, Government and Religious Uses. Interior Yard Setback for 10 feet – – – -- Buildings Located on Flag Lots in R-1 Created After December 25, 2002 (See EC 9.2775(5)(b)) Area-specific Interior Yard -- -- -- See (8) See (8) Setback Again it should be noted that minimum side and rear-yard setbacks were primarily set based on fire separation requirements and not set based on other community goals. Eugene also has a few special zones that have special sloped setback requirements for new developments. Some of these special zone requirements were targeted at making infill more compatible with existing PC Agenda - Page 18 development or limit the impact of transitions when a higher or more intense zone (multifamily, commercial, industrial, etc.) is located directly adjacent to a lower intensity zone (R-3 adjacent to R-1, for example). Potential Resolution There are at least two approaches that can be used: • Setbacks based on wall area • Sloped side and rear-yard setbacks The Portland zoning code standards for multifamily development include setback standards that prevent the long, narrow, and dark 3 to 5’ wide side and rear yard setbacks often found between larger multifamily developments in Eugene. The Portland setback standards promote options for privacy for neighboring properties and also guarantee some level of natural light to windows that face rear and side yards. The Portland standards are based on a simple approach based on wall area to determine the side and rear-yard setbacks. Smaller wall areas up to 1,000 square feet (9’ feet high by 110 feet long or 18’ high by 50’ long, for example) can be within 5 feet of the adjacent property line. These smaller wall areas can be combined with larger wall areas that have greater setbacks that vary from 5 feet to a maximum of 14 feet. This allows a large amount of flexibility for designers and architects in how they can comply. The results are new developments with varying setbacks that are often used to meet open space requirements and enhance the multifamily development. These Portland code standards have been in place for many years (several decades) with positive results for neighboring developments. Table 120-4 Minimum Side and Rear Setbacks for R3, R2, R1, and RH Zones If the area of the plane of the building wall is: [1] The required side and rear setback is: 1,000 sq. ft. or less 5 ft. 1,001 to 1,300 sq. ft. 6 ft. 1,301 to 1,600 sq. ft. 7 ft. 1,601 to 1,900 sq. ft. 8 ft. 1,901 to 2,200 sq. ft 9 ft. 2,201 to 2,500 sq. ft. 10 ft. 2,501 to 2,800 sq. ft. 11 ft. 2,801 to 3,100 sq. ft. 12 ft. 3,101 to 3,400 sq. ft. 13 ft. 3,401 sq. ft. or greater 14 ft. Notes: [1] Measurement of the area of the plane of the building wall is described in Chapter 33.930, Measurements. PC Agenda - Page 19 References: Multi-Dwelling Residential Zones 33.120 Multi-Dwelling Residential Zones - 06/13/12 NOTE: Zone designations are opposite of Eugene. Portland’s R1 zone is denser than the R2 and R3 zone. A recent multifamily development on High Street. The varying setbacks on the south side were used to preserve an existing tree and create more usable open space and entries. PC Agenda - Page 20 A recent multifamily infill development on East 14th Avenue. The varying sideyard setback on the west side was used to create a courtyard and open space for the entry. PC Agenda - Page 21