Planning Commission

AGENDA Phone: 541-682-5481 Meeting Location: www.eugene-or.gov/pc Virtual Meeting (Via Zoom) The Eugene Planning Commission welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Due to Governor Kate Brown’s Stay Home, Save Lives Executive Order to combat the spread of COVID-19, this meeting will be held remotely using virtual meeting technology. Information about online or other options for access and participation is available on the last page of this agenda. For the hearing impaired, assistive-listening devices or an interpreter can be provided with 72- hour notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation may also be provided with 72-hour notice. These services may not be available during the Planning Commission meeting based on service availability but may occur as a follow up service. To arrange for these services, contact the Planning Division at 541-682-5675. MONDAY, JUNE 7, 2021 – Regular Meeting 11:30 am to 1:30 pm Commissioners: John Barofsky; Ken Beeson (Vice Chair); Tiffany Edwards; Lisa Fragala; Dan Isaacson; Chris Ramey (Chair); Kristen Taylor A. 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. B. DELIBERATIONS AND POSSIBLE ACTION: COMMERCIAL SETBACKS CODE AMENDMENT (CA 20-5) Deliberations and possible action on a City-initiated land use code amendment which would require minimum building setbacks and landscaping for development on commercially zoned property. Staff: Althea Sullivan, 541-682-5485, ASullivan@eugene-or.gov C. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF 1. Other Items from Staff 2. Other Items from Commission 3. Learning: How are we doing? Page 1 of 20 HOW TO ACCESS THE MEETING To watch a webcast of the meeting live: Visit: https://www.eugene-or.gov/2109/Planning-Commission-Webcasts To be able to participate in Public Comment join using one of the two following options: 1. Join on your computer, tablet or smartphone Visit: https://eugene-or-gov.zoom.us/j/98939251956 Sign up to speak by clicking once on the “raise hand” icon 2. Join on your phone Dial one of the below numbers and enter the Webinar ID: 989 3925 1956 +1 833-548-0276 (Toll Free); or +1 833-548-0282 (Toll Free); or +1 877-853-5257 (Toll Free); or +1 888-475-4499 (Toll Free); For higher quality, dial a number based on your current location. International numbers available: https://eugene-or-gov.zoom.us/u/acRDLxDSxE Sign up to speak by dialing *9 (Star-9) Page 2 of 20  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 7, 2021 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Althea Sullivan, Senior Planner, Planning Division Subject: Deliberations & Possible Action: Commercial Setbacks Code Amendment (City File: CA 20-5) ACTION REQUESTED Hold deliberations and prepare a recommendation for City Council on a City-initiated land use code amendment to require minimum building setbacks and landscaping for development on commercially zoned property. BRIEFING STATEMENT On May 11, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a proposed land use code amendment initiated by City Council. No one provided testimony at the hearing, and staff has not received any testimony to date. Following the hearing, Commissioners asked staff for additional information to help them prepare for deliberations. BACKGROUND This City-initiated land use code amendment proposes to establish a minimum building setback for development on commercially zoned property with the goal to create vibrant walkable streetscapes in Eugene’s commercial areas. For context, the Eugene Zoning Map is available online and shows the location of commercially zoned properties in Eugene. As proposed, the land use code amendment would: • Apply only to new buildings and linear expansion of buildings on commercially zoned property. • Require a minimum setback of 3 feet for property zoned C-3 Major Commercial, and 5 feet for property zoned C-2 Community Commercial. • Add landscaping, and hardscaping or pedestrian amenity requirements for minimum setback areas of all commercially zoned properties. • Allow exceptions to the minimum setback for ground floor commercial when windows, and taller ceilings are provided. Dimensions and window percentages are context specific, with more stringent requirements in the downtown area. • Allow exceptions to the minimum setback for ground floor residential when residences are vertically separated, and enhanced pedestrian space is provided. Setback reduction allowance is context specific and differs between downtown and other areas. • Allow for an adjustment review process when a proposal responds to the intent of the code and creatively meets or exceeds the development standards. In developing the proposed draft code, staff understood Council’s direction to be fairly specific. For refence and as a reminder, the motion passed by Council is provided below: Page 3 of 20  Move to initiate a code amendment to change the default allowing for no commercial setbacks, to require commercial setbacks with planter strips, other amenities and design elements, (with the code amendment process) to be completed within six months if possible. The code amendment should allow for adjustments or outright exceptions for no commercial setbacks in building up to the sidewalk in certain specific circumstances to be enumerated in the code, and staff will check back before the end of the year reporting on feedback and potential exceptions for circumstances. Staff understands Council’s motion to be primarily focused on switching the default to require minimum commercial setbacks and landscaping where the code currently allows for buildings to be built at the property line, but to also establish clear outright exceptions and allow adjustment review in certain situations that would lead to better design where buildings are allowed closer to the street. In addition to the direction for a relatively quick and focused code amendment process, staff understands Council’s direction to allow for clear exceptions and adjustments to be two-fold. First, that we should explore exceptions to identify any scenarios where a clear and objective standard could be used to allow a building to move closer to the property line while still addressing the design concerns Council expressed with the current lack of minimum setback standards and landscaping. Second, it reflects an understanding that some sites are unique and having an adjustment review option is still necessary as a safety-net of sorts that would allow additional design flexibility and mitigate any unintended consequences of the proposed code change with new regulatory minimums. In exploring options for clear exceptions as directed by Council, staff had a challenging task. While the Council’s direction to simply flip the default could be met without allowing clear exceptions, their motion was to intentionally build in allowances for buildings closer to the street with key design elements provided in a clear and objective manner. In effect, this would provide a streamlined way to obtain building permits without the time and expense involved with an adjustment review application, yet still achieve better design result than current code allows with no setbacks or landscaping. To that end, staff has drafted a relatively narrow set of exceptions into the proposed code that would not require subjectivity to evaluate, but still ensure better design and a more welcoming pedestrian environment without the uncertainty involved with adjustment review. Following staff’s presentation of the draft code and the close of the public hearing on May 11, 2021, Commissioners asked staff for additional information on the reasoning behind specific details of the code. Many of the comments and questions were focused on the exceptions provided in the draft code that would allow buildings to be built closer to the street than the newly established minimum setbacks. In response to the questions, staff has grouped information into general categories to help organize the responses below. As a reminder, staff also engaged focus groups last fall to discuss initial concepts for the code amendments. This early involvement was done at the direction of Council, and staff invited individuals who primarily make up the development community in Eugene. These individuals were invited because they are often the end user of the land use code and their input into what is workable for projects is valuable in identifying key issues early on. Included in staff’s response to questions is relevant feedback from the focus group sessions. Page 4 of 20 For ease of reference, the proposed draft code amendments, including some minor edits from the City Attorney’s Office, are included as Attachment A. Minimum Windowsill Height Questions were asked about why focus groups believed that a 6-foot minimum windowsill height was a “bad idea.” In reviewing the feedback from focus groups, the reasoning included concern about the code being too restrictive in regulating available design options, the potential for the windowsill height to create a scenario where blank walls are along the street at eye level, and the result of minimal light and transparency being afforded for those within residential units on the ground floor. Vertical Separation Creating a clear exception for buildings with ground floor residential use to be allowed to be built closer to the property line has been a challenge with the proposed code amendment. Staff believes that the simplest solution to meet Council’s direction is to simply require a setback with landscaping, and to not allow residential buildings to move into the proposed required minimum setback. This is because the conversations that Council has had dating back to 2017 have been focused primarily on a privacy issue created by a building with ground floor residential use that resulted in units with windows directly next to the sidewalk. If the building is set back and landscaping is provided, the code would be implementing the simple design solution suggested by Council as a basic requirement. In trying to come up with a scenario where a clear code standard could mitigate this privacy issue, staff initially began with a minimum windowsill height and vertical separation. Staff thought that either option could reduce the potential for a scenario where someone would be looking directly into someone else’s living space right next to the sidewalk. In discussion with focus groups, the minimum windowsill height option was removed for the reasons discussed above. That left the option for vertical separation, which is the concept of raising the finished elevation of the ground floor up so that residences sit higher than the sidewalk. Some individuals in focus groups acknowledge that lifting a building could create an attractive building and also noted that while ADA considerations are a potential challenge, there are methods for making buildings accessible. While a few individuals spoke positively of the potential for the design impact of having vertical separation, more individuals expressed concerns about potential cost, ADA accessibility, and general concern about additional regulation. Staff is aware of the ADA concerns, and the potential cost and design burden that having to design a new building to sit three feet above grade could cause. That said, an important factor is that there are two other options to meet the new minimum setback standards that would not require the three feet of vertical separation. As proposed, someone could simply meet the new setback standards, or they could seek approval for an alternative design through an adjustment review. In the event someone elected to design their building to be three feet above grade to be allowed to move closer to the property line, the proposed code allows for building entrances at grade to allow for a single lobby to be used and once inside, ramps or elevators could provide access to units. While three feet of vertical separation may not be the ideal solution, it offers a clear way through code to address the concerns expressed by Council while also allowing a building to move closer to the street. Page 5 of 20 Applicability of New Standards A question was asked about why the threshold for applicability of the new minimum setback standards was proposed at 100% (i.e. a linear expansion that would double the existing length of a building façade along the street). Staff recommended this threshold simply to match the existing code threshold for applicability of maximum setback standards which already uses 100% (see EC 9.2170(4)(b)). By having the applicability threshold be the same for both the minimum and maximum setbacks, the proposed code maintains consistency and provides a simple way to meet Council’s intent. It is also worth noting that the standards would also apply to any new building but would not apply to a vertical building expansion which is a concern expressed by at least one Councilor at their last work session on this topic. Overhangs and Allowed Intrusions The question was raised about whether the new minimum setbacks would be just for the ground floor, allowing an overhang beginning at the second floor, or whether it would apply to the entire building. Currently, the draft code would apply to the entire building, but allows for exceptions already provided by another section of the Eugene Code. EC 9.6745 Setbacks – Intrusions Permitted allows for certain features to intrude into setback areas. Some of the features that are allowed to intrude into the minimum setbacks include porches, bay windows, and balconies above the ground floor, as well as features that tend to be more aesthetic and provide architectural detail such as eaves, sills, and awnings. In considering whether to modify the draft code to clarify that the setback would just apply to the ground floor, staff is concerned about the potential need to revisit discussion with focus groups and verify Council’s intent when they initiated the code amendment. As discussed by the Commission, it seems possible that this could result in unique buildings that are aesthetically pleasing, but staff is concerned about the potential for unintended consequences such as security issues and difficulty in managing the space adjacent to the sidewalk where a building has an overhang that results in a sheltered space. A subsequent result is often that property owners seek the ability to fence off these locations from the public. It should also be noted that existing code generally does not permit cantilevered building space to intrude into setbacks or over the property line into the right-of-way currently. However, adjustment review would still be an available alternative to consider such a design that would overhang the newly established minimum setbacks above the ground floor. Windows & Ground Floor Ceiling Height The question of where specific dimensions came from was raised primarily as it related to the standards for the C-2 zone which would require a 10-foot ground floor ceiling height with 60% street facing windows. When staff initially took proposed code concepts to the focus groups for feedback, the commercial exceptions required a minimum ground floor ceiling height of 14 feet with 75% of the street facing façade having windows with transparency. When this concept was presented, focus groups responded that 14 feet for a minimum ground floor ceiling height seemed excessive, and generally that 12 feet or less would be reasonable and still achieve the desired result. Coupled with comments from focus groups about distinguishing the standards in C-2 from C-3 and ensuring that amendments were as context specific as possible, staff looked to other portions of the code. In Page 6 of 20 thinking about treating Downtown differently as suggested, staff landed on modeling the dimensional requirements after the existing /BW Broadway Overlay Zone as those standards already exist and represent a successful local example relating to building design and a pedestrian friendly environment. This resulted in the commercial setback in the Downtown area being proposed with a 12-foot minimum first floor ceiling height, and street facing windows along 75% of the frontage with a requirement for a minimum of 75% visible light transmittance (i.e. transparency). In thinking about areas outside of Downtown that are zoned C-2, staff relied on focus group comments which from a dimensional perspective suggested between 9 and 12 feet for a minimum ground floor ceiling height. This led staff to settle on 10 feet as it fit between what is being proposed Downtown and is within the suggested range from focus group participants. The requirement for 60% of the street facing façade having windows, also with a minimum amount of visible light transmittance, came from suggestions to reduce the overall minimum required percentage. Given the feedback from focus groups, staff believes that a 60% minimum is a reasonable solution that still meets the intent and provides a less stringent standard for areas outside of Downtown, such as those along streets with higher traffic and pedestrian volumes. Adjustment Review In considering how to implement the adjustment review portion of Council’s motion, staff looked to existing code for adjustments to setback standards. As a reminder, an adjustment review is a Type II (Planning Director) land use decision that an applicant can voluntarily apply for to propose a design that responds to the intent of the code but may not exactly meet all of the required development standards. Only certain specific standards are eligible for an adjustment review. The process requires an applicant to submit a land use application addressing how the proposal complies with the relevant approval criteria and includes opportunity for public notice and appeal. For ease of reference, the full text of the relevant, existing adjustment review approval criteria from the Eugene Code (EC) is provided below. Note that the first set applies generally to setbacks outside the Downtown area, and the second set is specific to adjustment requests made for areas within Downtown. EC 9.8030(2) Setback Standards Adjustment. Where this land use code provides that the setback standards applicable to specific zones may be adjusted, the standards may be adjusted upon finding that the proposed setback is consistent with the following applicable criteria: (a) Minimum and Maximum Front Yard Setback Adjustment. The minimum or maximum required front yard setback may be adjusted if the proposal achieves all of the following: 1. Contributes to the continuity of building facades along the street. 2. Creates an attractive pedestrian environment along all adjacent streets 3. Is compatible with adjacent development. Maximum front yard setbacks may be adjusted without any requirement for pedestrian amenities if the location of the front yard is unsafe or intrinsically unsuitable for pedestrians or to protect disruption to significant natural resources. EC 9.8030(16) Downtown Plan Area. Where this land use code provides that a development standard applicable within the Downtown Plan Area as shown on Map 9.2161(6), Downtown Page 7 of 20  Plan Map, may be adjusted, approval of the request shall be given if the applicant demonstrates consistency with all of the following: (a) The requested adjustment will allow the project to achieve an equivalent or higher quality design than would result from strict adherence to the standards through: 1. A building orientation, massing, articulation and façade that contribute positively to the surrounding urban environment; and 2. An overall site and building design that creates a safe and attractive pedestrian environment. Design elements for this purpose may include special architectural design features, high quality materials, outdoor seating, pedestrian-scaled lighting, prominent entries facing the street, multiple openings or windows, and a significant use of clear, untinted glass. (b) Impacts to any adjacent residentially-zoned property are minimized. Design elements for this purpose may include treatment of building massing, setbacks, screening and landscaping. (c) For adjustments pursuant to EC 9.2170(10) only, placing utilities underground would be unreasonably onerous to the applicant. In reviewing the existing adjustment review criteria, staff recognize that both sets of criteria already address the concerns raised by Council about design that were the impetus for the land use code amendment. The consideration given to the pedestrian environment, context of the surrounding area, and building design are all features which are currently evaluated through the adjustment review criteria for projects that don’t otherwise meet applicable setback standards. As stated in EC 9.8015, the adjustment review process encourages design proposals that respond to the intent of the code and creatively meet or exceed specific development standards. For these reasons and given Council’s direction to move quickly on the proposed amendments, staff does not recommend any specific changes to the existing adjustment review criteria. PROCEDURES/APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA This proposed code amendment is subject to Type V application procedures (EC 9.7500 through EC 9.7560), with the applicable approval criteria being provided by EC 9.8065. The legislative Type V process includes public notice and a hearing before the Planning Commission, which then forwards a recommendation to the City Council for a final public hearing and action. At the Planning Commission public hearing, no one provided testimony and staff has not received any testimony to date. As noted above, the Planning Commission must address the relevant approval criteria from EC 9.8065 in making a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed ordinance. Preliminary findings addressing these approval criteria are provided for the Planning Commission’s consideration as Attachment B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION/NEXT STEPS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deliberate and make a recommendation to City Council on the proposed draft code amendments. Following Planning Commission’s deliberations and recommendation, the City Council will hold a public Page 8 of 20 hearing, which is currently scheduled for July 19, 2021, before taking final action. ATTACHMENTS A: Draft Code Amendments B: Preliminary Findings Information about the proposed code amendments can be found on the City’s website at: https://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/SearchApplicationDocuments?file=CA-20-0005 FOR MORE INFORMATION: Staff Contact: Althea Sullivan, Senior Planner Telephone: 541-682-5485 Email: ASullivan@eugene-or.gov Page 9 of 20  Attachment A Commercial Setbacks Draft Land Use Code Amendments Proposed text in bold italic Proposed deletions in [bracketed strike-out] Definitions 9.0500 Definitions. As used in this land use code, unless the context requires otherwise, the following words and phrases mean: *** Ground Floor Ceiling Height. For purposes of EC 9.2170 ground floor ceiling height means the clear vertical distance from the finished floor to the finished ceiling. Vertical Separation. For purposes of EC 9.2170 vertical separation means the vertical distance from the finished grade to the finished ground floor. Commercial Zones 9.2170 Commercial Zone Development Standards – General. *** (2) Application of Standards. In addition to applicable provisions contained elsewhere in this land use code, the development standards listed in Table 9.2170 Commercial Zone Development Standards shall apply to all development in commercial zones. Table 9.2170 Commercial Zone General Building Height and Setback Standards C-1 C-2 C-3 GO Building Height (See EC 9.2170(3)) Maximum Building Height 35 feet 120 feet 150 feet 50 feet Setbacks (See EC 9.2170(4)) Minimum Front Yard Setback 10 feet [0] 5 feet [0] 3 feet 10 feet Maximum Front Yard Setback 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Interior Yard Setback 0 feet to 10 0 feet to 10 0 feet 0 feet to 10 feet feet feet (4) Setbacks. (a) Exceptions to the general minimum front and interior yard setback requirements stated in Table 9.2170 Commercial Zone General Building Height and Setback Standards are contained in: Page 10 of 20  Attachment A 1. EC 9.6745 Setbacks – Intrusions Permitted. 2. EC 9.6750 Special Setback Standards. (b) The minimum front yard setbacks stated in Table 9.2170 Commercial Zone General Building Height and Setback Standards, shall apply only to new buildings and any building addition that increases the length of the building facade facing a street, internal accessway, private drive, or shopping street as defined in EC 9.2175(3) by at least 100%. For purposes of this subsection, the front yard setback may be measured from a front lot line abutting a public street or from the edge of the sidewalk furthest from the curb of an internal accessway, private drive, or shopping street. In addition, only the portion of the development site specifically affected by the new building and any linear facade expansion of more than 100% are subject to the requirements of this subsection. 1. The minimum front yard setback in C-2 and C-3 zones shall be landscaped to the Basic Landscape Standard (L-1) in accordance with EC 9.6210(1), except for paved pedestrian walkways, building entrances and enhanced pedestrian space. Vehicular access connections and driveways to parking areas are also exempt from this landscaping standard, but vehicle use areas are not otherwise allowed between the building and the street within the minimum setback area. 2. In C-2, except for C-2 within the Downtown Plan Area as shown on Map 9.2161(6) Downtown Plan Map, buildings and other structures with less than the minimum 5-foot setback are allowed, and exempt from the minimum landscaping requirement in this subsection, only for the following: a. Ground floor commercial and other non-residential uses that provide a minimum 10-foot ground floor ceiling height, and at least 60 percent of the street facing ground-floor wall area consists of glazing, openings, display windows or doorways. To meet this standard, the area of openings, glazing, display windows and doorways must allow two-way visibility with a Visible Light Transmittance (VLT) of at least 60 percent. Mullions and other solid components of glazed window systems may be counted as part of the glazing used to comply with this standard. b. Ground floor residential uses with a vertical separation of 3 feet above grade. Shared lobbies and building entrances are exempt from these vertical separation requirements. The minimum setback under this exception may only be reduced to 3 feet, and the remaining area of the reduced setback shall be provided as enhanced pedestrian space. c. Buildings with a street facing façade at the minimum 5- foot setback or less according to the standards above shall provide a main entrance facing the street. A building may have more than one main entrance, and buildings having frontage on more than one street Page 11 of 20  Attachment A shall provide at least one main entrance oriented to a street, or to the corner where two streets intersect. d. Vehicular use areas are not permitted between the street and any portion of the building at or within the required minimum setback according to this subsection, except for access to parking areas. 3. For C-2 and C-3 within the Downtown Plan Area as shown on Map 9.2161(6) Downtown Plan Map, buildings and other structures with less than the minimum setback are allowed, and exempt from the minimum landscaping requirement in this subsection, only for the following: a. Ground floor commercial and other non-residential uses that provide a minimum 12-foot ground floor ceiling height, and at least 75 percent of the street facing ground-floor wall area consists of glazing, openings, display windows or doorways. To meet this standard the area of openings, glazing, display windows and doorways must allow two-way visibility with a Visible Light Transmittance (VLT) of at least 60 percent. Mullions and other solid components of glazed window systems may be counted as part of the glazing used to comply with this standard. b. Ground floor residential uses with a vertical separation of 3 feet above grade. Shared lobbies and building entrances are exempt from these vertical separation requirements. The minimum setback under this exception may only be reduced to 3 feet, and the remaining area of reduced setback shall be provided as enhanced pedestrian space. c. Buildings with a street facing façade at the minimum setback or less according to the standards above shall provide a main entrance facing the street. A building may have more than one main entrance, and buildings having frontage on more than one street shall provide at least one main entrance oriented to a street, or to the corner where two streets intersect. d. Vehicular use areas are not permitted between the street and any portion of the building at or within the required minimum setback according to this subsection, except for access to parking areas. 4. The minimum setbacks in C-1 and GO shall be landscaped to the Basic Landscape Standard (L-1) in accordance with EC 9.6210(1), except for paved pedestrian walkways, building entrances and enhanced pedestrian space. Vehicular access connections and driveways to parking areas are also exempt from this landscaping standard, but vehicle use areas are not otherwise permitted between the building and the street within minimum setback areas. ([b]c) The maximum front yard setbacks stated in Table 9.2170 Commercial Zone General Building Height and Setback Standards, shall apply only to new buildings and any building addition that increases the length of Page 12 of 20  Attachment A the building facade facing a street, internal accessway, private drive, or shopping street as defined in EC 9.2175(3) by at least 100%. For purposes of this subsection, front yard setback may be measured from a front lot line abutting a public street or from the edge of the sidewalk furthest from the curb of an internal accessway, private drive, or shopping street. In addition, all new buildings and the portion of the development site specifically affected by the new building and any linear facade expansion of more than 100% are subject to the requirements of this subsection. (See Figure 9.2170(4)([b] c) Maximum Front Yard Setbacks, Building Orientation, and Entrances.) 1. In C-1, at least 80% of all street facing facades of the building must be within the specified maximum front yard setback. 2. In C-2 and C-3, a minimum of 25% of all street facing facades must be within the specified maximum front yard setback, or, orientation to an internal accessway, private drive, or shopping street as defined in EC 9.2175(3) is permitted in compliance with EC 9.2173(4)(a). 3. In GO, at least 60% of all street facing facades of the building must be within the specified maximum front yard setback. 4. Vehicular use areas are [parking and circulation is] not permitted in between the street and the portion of the building that is used to comply with this subsection. 5. Buildings fronting on a street must provide a main entrance facing the street on any facade of the building within the front yard setback. A main entrance is a principal entrance through which people enter the building. A building may have more than one main entrance. Buildings having frontage on more than one street shall provide at least one main entrance oriented to a street, or to the corner where two streets intersect. 6. The land between the portion of a building complying with EC 9.2170(4)([b] c )(1) or (2) and a street must be landscaped or paved with a hard surface for use by pedestrians. If a hard surface is provided, the area must contain at least the equivalent of 1 pedestrian amenity for every 200 square feet of hard surface. The use of porous materials for hard surfacing is encouraged. Residential developments are exempt from this subsection, except as required by any more restrictive provisions of EC 9.2170(4)(b) above. (See Figure 9.2170(4)([b] c)6. Landscaped or Paved Pedestrian Area with Pedestrian Amenities.) 7. The maximum front yard setback may be exceeded if the area between the building and the front property line is landscaped or paved for use by pedestrians. The area must contain at least the equivalent of 1 enhanced pedestrian amenity for every 200 square feet of hard surface. (See Figure 9.2170(4)([b] c)6. Landscaped or Paved Pedestrian Area with Pedestrian Amenities.) ([c]d) Where lot lines abut property within a residential zone category, the minimum interior yard setback for any building shall be 10 feet. Within the Downtown Plan Area as shown on Map 9.2161(6) Downtown Plan Map, adjustments to this section may be made based on the criteria in EC 9.8030(16). ([d]e) For lots zoned C-1 within the S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Page 13 of 20  Attachment A Zone boundaries as shown on Figure 9.3605, setbacks from all portions of interior lot lines (as that term is defined for purposes of the S-JW Special Area Zone) shall be at least 10 feet from the interior lot line. In addition, at a point that is 20 feet above grade, the setback shall slope at the rate of 10 inches vertically for every 12 inches horizontally (approximately 50 degrees from vertical) away from that lot line. ([e]f) Adjustments. Except for the Downtown Plan Area as shown on Map 9.2161(6) Downtown Plan Map, adjustments to the minimum and maximum front yard setbacks and landscaping standards in this subsection, except subsection (4)(a), may be made, based on criteria at EC 9.8030(2) Setback Standards Adjustment. Within the Downtown Plan Area, adjustments to the minimum and maximum front yard setbacks in this subsection, except subsection (4)(a), may be made, based on the criteria at EC 9.8030(16). (5) Landscaping. The following landscape standards apply to new buildings, and the portion of the development site specifically affected by the new building and shall be subject to the requirements of this subsection. (a) Minimum Landscape Area Required. In all commercial zones, except C- 2 within the Downtown Plan Area as shown on Map 9.2161(6) and C-3, a minimum of 10 percent of the development site shall be landscaped with living plant materials. Within the C-2 zone within the Downtown Plan Area, a minimum of 5 percent of the development site shall be landscaped with living plant materials. No minimum landscaping is required in the C-3 zone, except as required by EC 9.2170(4)(b)1. All required landscaping shall comply with landscape standards beginning at EC 9.6200 Purpose of Landscape Standards. Any required landscaping, such as for required front or interior yard setbacks or off- street parking areas, shall apply toward the development site minimum landscape requirement. The area of exterior landscaping on the roof of a building or exposed terrace may be used to meet the 10% minimum landscaping standard. Up to 50% of the landscape area may be a hard surface for recreational or enhanced pedestrian space. (b) Minimum Landscape Standard. Unless otherwise specified in this land use code, required landscape areas must, at a minimum, comply with EC 9.6210(1) Basic Landscape Standard (L-1). (c) Landscaping In Interior Yard Setbacks Abutting Residential Zones. Landscape planting beds within the interior yard setbacks abutting a residential zone shall be a minimum of 7 feet in width and shall comply with EC 9.6210(3) High Screen Landscape Standard (L-3). (d) Street Trees. Street tree requirements are specified in EC 7.280 Street Tree Program – Policies, Standards, Procedure. (e) Within the Downtown Plan Area as shown on Map 9.2161(6) Downtown Plan Map, adjustments to subsections (a) and (b) may be made based on the criteria in EC 9.8030(16). Page 14 of 20  Attachment A /ND Nodal Development Overlay Zone 9.4290 Density and Development Standards. In addition to the requirements of the base zone, the following standards shall apply to all development, except that the standards in subsection (2) and (3) do not apply to single-family dwellings or duplexes. *** (2) Building Setbacks. (a) Buildings shall be set back a maximum of 15 feet from the street. There is no minimum setback, except as required by EC 9.2170(4)(b). (b) Where the site is adjacent to more than one street, a building is required to meet the above maximum setback standard on only one of the streets. /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone 9.4530 /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone Development Standards. (1) Building Setbacks. (a) Buildings shall be set back a maximum of 15 feet from the street. There is no minimum setback, except as required by EC 9.2170(4)(b). (b) Where the site is adjacent to more than one street, a building is required to meet the above maximum setback standard on only one of the streets. (2) Building Orientation. (a) Buildings fronting on a street must provide a main entrance on the facade of the building that is within the 15 foot maximum street setback facing the street. A main entrance is the principal entry through which people enter the building. A building may have more than one main entrance. (Refer to Figure 9.4530(2) Building Orientation in /TD Areas.) (b) Buildings having frontage on more than one street shall provide at least one main entrance oriented to a street with transit facilities, or to the corner where two streets intersect. *** (6) Improvements Between Buildings and Streets. The land between a building or exterior improvement and a street must be landscaped and/or paved with a hard surface for use by pedestrians. If hard-surfacing is provided, the area must contain pedestrian amenities such as seating areas, drinking fountains, and/or other design elements (such as public art, planters, and kiosks). The use of porous paving materials for hard surfacing is encouraged. Residential developments are exempt from this requirement, except when zoning is C-2 or C-3. (See Figure 9.4530(8) Improvements Between Buildings and Streets in /TD Areas.) (7) Adjustments. An adjustment to any of the standards in this section may be made based on the criteria in EC 9.8030(32). Page 15 of 20  Attachment B PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Commercial Setbacks (City File: CA 20-5) Eugene Code (EC) Section 9.8065 requires that the code amendments comply with the following approval criteria (in bold): EC 9.8065(1): Is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Findings addressing consistency with applicable statewide planning goals (shown in italics) are provided below. Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The City has codified provisions for citizen involvement which ensure the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements for such involvement. Adoption of the proposed code amendment will follow the process for Type V land use applications as laid out in the City’s land use code, including requirements for public notice and comment. Additionally, staff held focus groups on initial concepts which allowed for input that was taken into consideration in drafting the commercial setbacks code amendments. The process for adopting the code amendment complies with Goal 1 because it is consistent with, and will not change, the City’s existing and acknowledged citizen involvement provisions and included additional outreach. The Planning Commission public hearing on the proposed code amendment was duly noticed to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), the City of Springfield, Lane County, and all City of Eugene recognized neighborhood organizations, as well as community groups and individuals who have requested notice. In addition, notice of the public hearing was also published in the Register Guard newspaper, a newspaper of general circulation in the City. City Council Initiation September 28, 2020 Focus Groups (Two Sessions) November 6, 2020 Application DLCD Notice April 6, 2021 Notice and Public Notice of Planning April 9, 2021 Involvement Commission Hearing Timeline Legal Notice in Register Guard of April 21, 2021 Planning Commission Hearing Following the Planning Commission public hearing, a duly noticed, subsequent public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider final local approval, modification, or denial of the code Page 16 of 20  Attachment B amendment. These processes afford ample opportunity for citizen involvement consistent with Goal 1. Therefore, the code amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 1. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual basis for such decisions and actions. The City’s land use code specifies the formal adoption procedure and approval criteria that were used in considering these amendments. The record shows that there is an adequate factual basis for the amendments. The Goal 2 coordination requirement is met when the City engages in an exchange, or invites such an exchange, between the City and any affected governmental unit and when the City uses the information obtained in the exchange to balance the needs of the citizens. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City engaged in an exchange about the subject of these amendments with the affected governmental units. Specifically, the City provided notice of the proposed action and opportunity to comment to Lane County, the City of Springfield and the Department of Land Conservation and Development. There are no Goal 2 Exceptions required for the proposed ordinance. Therefore, the code amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2. Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands. To preserve agricultural lands. The code amendment does not affect any land designated for agricultural use. Therefore, the code amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 3. Goal 4 - Forest Lands. To conserve forest lands. The code amendment does not affect any land designated for forest use. Therefore, the code amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 4. Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources. To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. The code amendment does not create or amend the City’s adopted inventory of Goal 5 resources and does not amend any code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource, or to address specific requirements of Goal 5. The code amendment does not allow new uses that could be conflicting uses with a significant Goal 5 resource site and does not amend the City’s acknowledged urban growth boundary. Therefore, the code amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 5. Goal 6 - Air, Water and land Resource Quality. To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. Page 17 of 20  Attachment B Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air, water and land from the impacts of those discharges. The amendments do not affect the City’s ability to provide for clean air, water or land resources. Therefore, the code amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 6. Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. Goal 7 requires that local government planning programs include provisions to protect people and property from natural hazards such as floods, landslides, earthquakes and related hazards, tsunamis and wildfires. The Goal prohibits development in natural hazard areas without appropriate safeguards. The code amendment does not affect the City’s existing restrictions and approval criteria regarding development in areas subject to natural disasters and hazards. Therefore, the code amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 7. Goal 8 - Recreational Needs. To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors, and where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. Goal 8 ensures the provision of recreational facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily concerned with the provision of those facilities in non-urban areas of the state. The code amendment does not affect the City’s provisions for recreation areas, facilities, or recreational opportunities. Therefore, the code amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 8. Goal 9 - Economic Development. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s citizens. The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR 660, Division 9) requires cities to evaluate the supply and demand of commercial land relative to community economic objectives. The Employment Lands Supply Study 2012-2032 (ELSS) is included as appendix B in the City’s comprehensive plan and complies with the requirements of Goal 9 and the corresponding Administrative Rule. The code amendment does not affect the amount of land designated or zoned for commercial use. Goal 9 also requires cities consider methods and devices for overcoming certain regional conditions and deficiencies for implementing this goal, including land use controls and ordinances. The code amendment sets new standards for setbacks for commercially zoned property, but allows clear exceptions, and maintains adjustment review as an option to maintain flexibility for development. Therefore, to the extent Goal 9 is applicable to the amendment, the amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9. Goal 10 - Housing. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Page 18 of 20  Attachment B Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential land for needed housing units. The code amendment does not impact the supply or availability of residential lands included in the City’s documented supply of “buildable land” that is available for residential development. Therefore, to the extent Goal 10 is applicable to the code amendment, the code amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 10. Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. The code amendment does not affect the City’s provision of public facilities and services. Therefore, the code amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11. Goal 12- Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR, OAR 660-12). The code amendment will not significantly affect any transportation facility, nor does it change procedures related to analyzing and mitigating impacts to the transportation system. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12. Goal 13 - Energy Conservation. To conserve energy. The code amendment does not affect any of the City’s energy conservation measures or programs. Therefore, the code amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 13 does not apply. Goal 14 - Urbanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. The amendments do not affect the City’s provisions regarding the transition of land from rural to urban uses. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 14. Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway. To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway. The amendments do not contain any changes to the City’s Willamette River Greenway regulations; therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 15. Goal 16 through 19 - Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean Resources. The code amendment does not include any changes related to coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources. Therefore, the code amendment will not affect compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19. Page 19 of 20  Attachment B EC 9.8065(2): Is consistent with applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan and applicable adopted refinement plans. The code amendment does not include any change in adopted land use designations or policy. It also does not change any requirements concerning compliance with the Metro Plan, Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan, and applicable refinement plans. The changes are limited to requirements for setbacks for commercially zoned property, and there are no policies or other applicable provisions in the Metro Plan or adopted refinement plans that specifically serve as mandatory approval criteria for such design changes. Therefore, the code amendments comply with the above criterion. EC 9.8065(3): In the case of establishment of a special area zone, is consistent with EC 9.3020 Criteria for Establishment of an S Special Area Zone. The code amendment does not establish a special area zone. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. CONCLUSION Based on the available information and evidence, and the preceding findings of compliance, the code amendment complies with the applicable approval criteria. Page 20 of 20