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, OCTOBER 6, 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. SOUTH WILLAMETTE DESIGN CODE Staff: Jennifer Knapp, 541-682-5445 1:15 p.m. III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission C. Learning: How are we doing? Commissioners: Steven Baker; John Barofsky; Rick Duncan; John Jaworski (Vice-Chair); Jeffery Mills; Kristen Taylor; William Randall (Chair)  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 6, 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 wrap-up of outstanding discussion items from May 5, May 19, June 2, June 23, July 14, July 21, July 28, Sept. 8 and Sept. 29 regarding the development of the South Willamette Special Area Zone; for additional background, please see the AIS materials for these dates. BACKGROUND Commissioners began a review of code concepts for the proposed South Willamette Special Area Zone in early May. At this time Commissioners provided input to prioritize more detailed review of several key topic areas. Previous work sessions addressed the topics of transitions, flexibility, design standards, conceptual standards for street design and the proposed Single Family Options subdistrict. For additional information on these discussions, refer to meeting materials for the above-listed dates. Discussion of suggestions made by individual Commissioners were held on June 2nd and 23rd resulting in either resolution or deferral to upcoming discussion of other topic areas. Staff has continued to add suggestions to the Working Summary document as the proposed design code concepts have been presented and discussed. This meeting will review remaining suggestions from past meetings, changes to proposed concepts and any deferred topic areas will be reviewed and resolved. In addition, staff will share the meeting reports and questionnaire results from the Property and Business Owners Meetings and the Community Workshop. NEXT STEPS Following revisions based on Planning Commission review of the code concepts, a draft code will be introduced for public discussion later this fall. Community outreach will continue with online “Watch and Learn” videos and associated questionnaires. A Planning Commission Open House will be held Nov. 6, 2014 at the Hilyard Community Center. ATTACHMENTS A. Planning Commission Review – Working Summary (updated for 10.06.14) FOR MORE INFORMATION Jennifer Knapp at 541-682-5445 or Jennifer.L.Knapp@ci.eugene.or.us PC Agenda - Page 1  Attachment A South Willamette Special Area Zone Planning Commission Review – Working Summary Oct. 6, 2014 Topic Suggestion Considerations Resolution Yes No Discuss Development 1 Only transition different uses across • Reduces adjacency issues between differing uses 0 4 3 Type* streets along 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 1 4 2 Type* properties; remove MF along 29th • Retains existing adjacency concerns between high- Ave. and remove row houses along intensity mixed use and single family residential Portland Street and High Street as • Eliminates use transitions use transitions • Reduces housing type options Development 3 Alternative to #2: Rezone larger • Promotes consistency across blocks within district 2 5 0 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 0 4 3 Type to each 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 • Suggestion needs refinement Add to “design standards” setback discussion Transitions 6 Use the City of Portland variable • Provides additional flexibility for development 2 5 0 setback standard based on wall area • Increases complexity for design and plan review PC Agenda - Page 2  Attachment A Transitions 7 Require parking as transition from • Increases buffer to adjacent low-density Add to “design standards” MF or MU to SF residential discussion • Reduces development options for MF and MU sites Transitions 8 Disallow balconies and dormers • Reduces privacy impacts to ex. low-density 3 3 - along property lines next to SF residential homes (only allow along front • Potentially reduces livability for future residents; property lines). 6.23.14 impacts marketability of housing and feasibility of clarification: applies to adjacent redevelopment USE not ZONE • Reduces design options/flexibility Transitions 9 Clarify that tree waiver applies only • Eliminates possible assumption that waiver may Include clarification in to standards triggered at the time of pass to future property owners or apply to other, code development future 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; discussion narrow lots may preclude row house development due to additional side-yard setbacks Transitions 11 Reference existing solar access • Promotes consistency with existing code 6 - - standards instead of proposed • Proposed solar access standards (as part of standards. 6.23.14 clarification: transition standards) protect R-1 and SFO existing solar standards should apply properties adjacent to all adjacent development only to SFO zone 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 0 4 3 used in SUNA n’hood instead of • Proposed transition standards offer more proposed standards protection and greater flexibility than existing SUNA standards Parking 13 Increase parking standards to match • Reduces potential impacts on adjacent 4 3 0 university area. 6.23.14 neighborhoods from excess parking demand clarification: establish multifamily • Reduces feasibility of redevelopment; reduces parking standards based on number housing and job capacity of district PC Agenda - Page 3  Attachment A of bedrooms vs. number of units. • Distorts market for effective parking pricing • Many other elements proposed to address parking demand, including permit system to address neighborhood parking issues if needed Parking 14 Offset parking requirement 1:1 for • Acknowledges increased parking capacity provided Include in proposed code new, on-street parking spaces by on-street spaces provided through the development Parking 15 Do not allow parking reductions for • Maintains minimum parking requirements for TBD residential uses that eliminate residential uses parking spaces; off-site spaces and • Reduces potential for on-street, long-term parking “replacement” reductions OK spill-over in nearby residential areas • Reduces flexibility for projects • Reduces development capacity of district Parking 16 Eliminate ability to exchange parking • Addresses lack of feasibility in proposal TBD spaces for open space • Keeps more parking • Reduces potential for open space • Reduces flexibility for development Parking 17 Only allow exchange of parking • Keeps more parking TBD spaces for open space on properties • Reduces potential for open space fronting South Willamette Street • Reduces flexibility for development Parking 18 Line parking structures on the • Reduces impacts of parking garages on the Include in proposed code ground floor with active uses walkability and character of streets Parking 19 Require a formal agreement for any • Increases assurance that parking will be available Include in proposed code off-site or shared parking to meet the needs of proposed development reductions; allow agreement to be • Allows flexibility over time as needs change updated over time as parking requirements change Parking 20 Define “transit stop” for purposes of • Increases clarity and intent of allowance Include in proposed code parking reductions Parking 21 Establish a “maximum reduction” • Maintains minimum parking requirements for all TBD cap for parking flexibility, e.g. a uses percentage of the basic standard • Reduces potential for on-street, long-term parking spill-over in nearby residential areas • Reduces flexibility for projects • Reduces development capacity of district PC Agenda - Page 4  Attachment A Parking 22 Establish a residential parking • Establishes higher minimum parking requirement TBD minimum of 1 space per dwelling for residential uses unit up to 2 bedrooms; add .5 space • Reduces potential for large, multi-bedroom per unit for each additional dwellings to distort parking demand vs. capacity bedroom; 25% reduction applies per • Reduces potential for on-street, long-term parking current code (West University area spill-over in nearby residential areas requirement) • Reduces flexibility for projects • Reduces development capacity of district Parking 23 Establish a residential parking • Establishes lower minimum parking requirement TBD minimum of .5 spaces per unit for residential uses up to 2-bedrooms (Walnut Station requirement), with • Establishes higher minimum parking requirement an additional .5 spaces per for residential units with more than 3 bedrooms additional bedroom above 2 bedrooms; proposed reductions allowed Flexibility 24 Allow one additional floor for • Offsets cost and loss of bldg. square footage for TBD developments that provide integral providing structured parking on a building floor (structure/podium) parking on at • Increases building height least one floor Flexibility 25 Allow additional bldg. height in • Provides equitable flexibility for sites of all sizes Include in proposed code exchange for % of site in open space vs. specific square foot area, with a minimum area requirement Flexibility 26 Clarify that bonus height in • Increases clarity and intent of allowance Include in proposed code exchange for open space will be allowed on a percentage of the building area (vs. site area) Flexibility 27 Cap the amount of parking that can • Retains more parking for proposed development TBD be reduced in exchange for open • Reduces potential for excessive parking reductions space at 15% • Reduces flexibility for development Flexibility 28 Direct building height bonuses at • Directs incentives at the additional cost of a higher More information needed the 5th floor vs. the 6th floor or construction type for buildings above 4 stories higher • Reduces overall allowed building height within the district from 5 stories to 4 • Reduces financial feasibility of individual projects PC Agenda - Page 5  Attachment A • Reduces development capacity of district Design 29 Remove requirement for retail on • Allows market to determine appropriate locations TBD Standards ground floor in mixed use subdistrict and amount of retail use • Increases flexibility for development • Reduces control over development character and activity level along certain streets in the district Design 30 Allow more than 50% of building to • Increases flexibility for development Include in proposed code Standards be set back if the area is used for • Increases potential for open space in district plaza space or pedestrian amenities • May reduce enclosure of public space along street Design 31 Remove requirement for specific • Allows market to determine appropriate locations TBD Standards frequency of entrances in /AR Active and frequency of entrances; reduces chance of Retail subdistrict “faux entrances” and unintended design outcomes • Increases flexibility for development • Reduces control over development character and activity level along certain streets in the district Design 32 Reduce required frequency of • Increases flexibility for development Include in proposed code Standards entrances in /AC/RH subdistrict to every 30 feet (vs. 25) Design 33 Remove “change of color” as an • Promotes more effective application of Include in proposed code Standards optional, stand-alone element to articulation standards distinguish base, middle and top of • Reduces flexibility for development buildings (allow only in combination with other distinguishing features) Design 34 Add “change of pattern” to vertical • Promotes more effective application of Include in proposed code Standards articulation options, in combination articulation standards with color • Increases flexibility for development Design 35 Add additional flexibility for • Increases flexibility for development Clarification needed Standards transparency to address different • Allows more privacy for first floor residential needs on the first floor Design 36 Increase allowance for certain types • Establishes more reasonable standard for viable Include in proposed code Standards of commercial in the /AC subdistrict retail or commercial use from 500 sf to 1200 sf • Increases flexibility for development Design 37 Add standards to promote green • Increases green infrastructure Clarification needed Standards building practices for parking and • Reduces flexibility for development street design, e.g. bioswales, PC Agenda - Page 6  Attachment A pervious paving SFO 38 Replace the proposed standards for • Allows light while maintaining privacy TBD Transitions off-set and clerestory windows on • Allows more design flexibility interior property lines with alternate • Removes the need to establish window placement standards including opaque glass. on neighboring properties. SFO 39 Remove the proposed standards for • Allows more design flexibility TBD Transitions off-set and clerestory windows on • Removes the need to establish window interior property lines. placement on neighboring properties. SFO 40 Require MU/AC transition standards • Limits the scale of row houses next to lower-scale TBD Transitions for SFO/RH subdistrict when residential types; provides screening and other adjacent to SFO and R-1 compatibility measures • Reduces flexibility for row house development where transitions occur SFO 41 Remove transition standards within • Supports flexibility for smaller-scale housing types TBD Transitions the SFO subdistrict • Transitions not currently required in R-1 • Reduces limitations on scale of building within SFO subdistrict SFO 42 Replace the maximum SFO/RH unit • Increases design flexibility TBD Unit Size width of 25’ with 30’ • Could increase intended “smaller” unit sizes SFO 43 Limit the SFO/RH unit size by sq. ft. • Consistent with Cottage Cluster TBD Unit Size not width • Would keep the unit size small while increasing design flexibility SFO 44 Assign a point system to the design • More value based system TBD Design standards menus rather than • Removes opting for “low-hanging fruit” Standards choosing a certain number of items SFO 45 Add flexibility to minimum • Increases design flexibility TBD Design dimension standards for open space Standards and porches SFO 46 Increase allowable shared spaces: • Allows more efficient use of space TBD Design porches, driveways, garages • May lead to designs inconsistent with Single- Standards Family character SFO 47 Remove maximum limits on number • Allows greater design flexibility based on target TBD Parking of vehicle spaces market and lot configuration • May result in larger parking areas and more paving PC Agenda - Page 7  Attachment A SFO 48 Allow parking within the front set- • Allows for parking space in front of the garage Include in proposed code Parking back • Allows vehicle parking in the front of residences. SFO 49 Allow 2 car garages to face and be • Continues an established pattern TBD Garages accessed by street • Conflicts with the subdistrict intent of limiting vehicle use areas especially at the front of dwellings in favor of an enhanced pedestrian realm • Conflicts with driveway size limitations SFO 50 Do not require alley access • Overly burdensome on the first developer TBD Access • Conflicts with the subdistrict intent of limiting vehicle use areas especially at the front of dwellings in favor of an enhanced pedestrian realm SFO Land 51 Pursue option A only • Best approach from a design and legal standpoint Include in proposed code Division (shared spaces as separate lot/lots) • Option B may result in more complications, uncertainty for owners, and possible obstacles with lenders SFO Land 52 Provide more flexibility for the land • May see more developers willing to take the risk TBD Division division process (i.e. selling units of developing in district one by one) • Possibly less assurance of design outcomes if lots are developed one by one SFO Land 53 Continue to develop a Low/Med. • Removes density constraint that may limit ability TBD Division Plan Designation for SFO/RH to provide the row house development type • Introduces a more flexible land use designation allowing a greater range of building types and forms • Does not alter other design standards and limitations addressing compatibility • Exceeds current R-1 density SFO Design 54 Continue to develop Design Review • Creates a more holistic review approach and TBD Review as a 2 level process differentiates the process from adjustments SFO Design 55 Add a category of higher-level • Establishes a framework of intent within which the Include in proposed code Review criteria (similar to Downtown Plan) design response to individual (more specific) standards may evaluated • Reduces risk of “tunnel vision” application of PC Agenda - Page 8  Attachment A criteria at the expense of public benefit • Increases ability to address broader issues * 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 9