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 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, JUNE 23, 2014 – 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. PLANNING COMMISSIONER UPDATES: PORTLAND DESIGN REVIEW FIELD TRIP, ENVISION EUGENE RESOURCE GROUP 11:55 a.m. III. SOUTH WILLAMETTE SPECIAL AREA ZONE Staff: Robin Hostick, 541-682-5507 1:15 p.m. IV. 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; Jonathan Belcher; Rick Duncan; John Jaworski (Vice- Chair); Jeffery Mills; William Randall (Chair)  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 23, 2014 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: City of Eugene Planning Division Subject: South Willamette Concept Plan Implementation: Draft Design Code ISSUE STATEMENT This work session is a continuation of previous discussions on May 5, May 19, and June 2 regarding the development of the South Willamette Special Area Zone; for additional background, please see the AIS materials for these dates. BACKGROUND At the May 5, 2014 work session, Commissioners reviewed code concepts at a high level and began a more detailed discussion of proposed transition standards. During the following week, Commissioners provided input to prioritize more detailed review of the following concepts: • Transition standards (continuation of previous discussion) • Design review • Limited, built-in flexibility and incentives for open space, parking and building height • Design standards Although design review was rated as the second-highest priority behind transition standards, additional work is needed to develop realistic alternatives and support a productive discussion. The May 19th work session addressed transitions and possible changes in development type and uses proposed in the South Willamette Concept Plan. The June 2nd work session focused on reaching resolution for a range of suggestions made by individual Commissioners. The specific topics and outcomes of this discussion are reflected in Attachment A. This work session will address items identified for further discussion and continue with a review of priority topics, specifically design flexibility and design standards. As we continue the review process, specific, actionable suggestions will be most useful for staff in crafting a code that meets the Planning Commission’s expectations. Where changes to proposed concepts are suggested, a clear sense of whether the suggestion is generally supported by the Commission will be needed. NEXT STEPS Following revisions based on this input and comments from the Planning Commission, a draft code will be introduced for public discussion later this summer and fall. In addition, a test drive of the draft code with partners at the American Institute of Architects is currently underway and will continue through Thursday, June 19th. This information, in addition to the complete code, will be discussed by the PC Agenda - Page 1 Planning Commission later this summer and fall. Note that review time lines may be extended to allow time for additional public outreach on long-term street options. This work will continue to be coordinated with the South Willamette Street Improvement Project and other ongoing implementation work such as MUPTE and Opportunity Siting. ATTACHMENTS A. Planning Commission Review – Working Summary (updated for 6.23.14) FOR MORE INFORMATION Robin Hostick at 541-682-5507 or robin.a.hostick@ci.eugene.or.us PC Agenda - Page 2  Attachment A South Willamette Special Area Zone Planning Commission Review – Working Summary June 23, 2014 Topic Suggestion Considerations Resolution Development 1 Only transition different uses across • Reduces adjacency issues between differing uses along Suggestion declined Type* streets property boundaries • Increases up-zoning of residential or eliminates significant amounts of commercial/mixed use (e.g. along Willamette) • Adjacency concerns are addressed through transition requirements Development 2 Do not upzone single family • Reduces change to existing properties Suggestion declined Type* properties; remove MF along 29th Ave. • Retains existing adjacency concerns between high- and remove row houses along intensity mixed use and single family residential Portland Street and High Street as use • Eliminates use transitions transitions • Reduces housing type options Development 3 Alternative to #2: Rezone larger • Promotes consistency across blocks within district Suggestion declined Type* blocks of existing single family to • Increases change to existing properties multifamily where changes are • Suggestion needs refinement to specific areas already proposed Development 4 Require a PUD for row houses • Intent of code is to address design issues specific to each Suggestion declined Type development type through clear/objective standards that also reduce process/increase predictability • PUD standards are oriented towards larger developments and do not address design issues specific to row houses Transitions 5 Limit the extent of the sloped setback • Suggestion needs refinement Add to “design standards” discussion Transitions 6 Use the City of Portland variable • Provides additional flexibility for development Suggestion declined setback standard based on wall area • Increases complexity for design and plan review Transitions 7 Require parking as transition from MF • Increases buffer to adjacent low-density residential Further discussion or MU to SF • Reduces development options for MF and MU sites Transitions 8 Disallow balconies and dormers along • Reduces privacy impacts to ex. low-density residential Further discussion property lines next to SF homes (only • Potentially reduces livability for future residents; impacts allow along front property lines); marketability of housing and feasibility of redevelopment PC Agenda - Page 3  Attachment A alternatively: use different standards • Reduces design options/flexibility Transitions 9 Clarify that tree waiver applies only to • Eliminates possible assumption that waiver may pass to Include clarification in standards triggered at the time of future property owners or apply to other, future code development development proposals Transitions 10 Apply transition standards to row • Reduces protections to ex. low-density residential Add to SFO standards houses • Reduces flexibility and feasibility for row houses; narrow discussion lots may preclude row house development due to additional side-yard setbacks Transitions 11 Reference existing solar access • Promotes consistency with existing code Further discussion standards instead of proposed • Proposed solar access standards (as part of transition standards standards) protect R-1 and SFO properties adjacent to all adjacent development types; existing standards apply only to structures on R-1 and R-2 zoned lots • Existing standards require significantly greater setbacks for a given building height than proposed standards Transitions 12 Utilize existing transition standards • Promotes consistency with existing code Suggestion declined used in SUNA n’hood instead of • Proposed transition standards offer more protection and proposed standards greater flexibility than existing SUNA standards Parking 13 Increase parking standards to match • Reduces potential impacts on adjacent neighborhoods Suggestion carried university area (i.e. establish parking from excess parking demand standards based on number of • Reduces feasibility of redevelopment; reduces housing bedrooms vs. number of units) and job capacity of district • Distorts market for effective parking pricing • Many other elements proposed to address parking demand, including permit system to address neighborhood parking issues if needed * Currently proposed development types and subdistricts closely reflect the content of the South Willamette Concept Plan. The location of proposed development types is based on extensive public discussion and fine-tuning to balance needs and priorities in the area with an emphasis on minimizing change vs. accommodating growth; significant changes would alter this balance. PC Agenda - Page 4