Planning Commission

AGENDA Phone: 541-682-5481 Meeting Location: www.eugene-or.gov/pc Hybrid Meeting (See How to Access this Meeting on next page) The Eugene Planning Commission welcomes your interest in these agenda items. This Planning Commission meeting is in hybrid format without the ability for public comment. Members of the public can watch or listen in using Zoom or phone in options. 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. TUESDAY, November 14, 2023 – Regular Meeting 5:30 pm – 7:30 pm Commissioners: Ken Beeson; Diane Behling; Tiffany Edwards (Chair); Lisa Fragala; Dan Isaacson; Jason Lear (Vice Chair); Chris Ramey The Commission will begin the meeting with the City’s Land Acknowledgement statement: Since time immemorial the Kalapuya people have been the Indigenous stewards to our region, building dynamic communities, maintaining balance with wildlife, and enacting sustainable land practices. This land acknowledgement is a way of resisting the erasure of Indigenous histories and to honor Native communities by inviting truth and reconciliation. Following treaties between 1851 and 1855, Kalapuya people were dispossessed of their Indigenous homeland by the United States government and forcibly removed to the Coast Reservation in Western Oregon. As we consider the impacts of colonization, we also acknowledge the strength and resiliency of displaced Indigenous people. The City of Eugene is built within the traditional homelands known as Kalapuya Ilihi. Kalapuya descendants are citizens of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians of Oregon, they continue to make contributions in our communities here and across the lands. We express our respect for the inherent political sovereignty of all federally recognized Tribal Nations and Indigenous people who live in the State of Oregon and across the nation. Therefore, the Planning Commission recognizes that what we do today will affect the many generations who will come after us. A. DELIBERATIONS: River Road-Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan and Metro Plan Amendments and River Road-Santa Clara Neighborhood-Specific Code Amendments (CITY FILE: MA 23-5 AND CA 23-3) Deliberations on amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to adopt the River Road-Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan and repeal the 1987 River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, including neighborhood- specific land use code amendments within the River Road and Santa Clara Page 1 of 21  neighborhood boundaries (the code amendments would only apply to properties within city limits). Staff: Terri Harding, 541-682-5635, THarding@eugene-or.gov B. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF 1. Other Items from Staff 2. Other Items from Commission 3. Learning: How are we doing HOW TO ACCESS THE MEETING This work session will be in hybrid format without the ability for public comment. Planning Commission and staff will meet in person (or virtually if needed). Members of the public can watch or listen in using Zoom or phone in options below. To watch a webcast of the meeting live: 1. Visit: https://www.eugene-or.gov/2109/Planning-Commission-Webcasts 2. Join on your computer, tablet or smartphone Visit: https://eugene-or-gov.zoom.us/j/88568352100 3. Join on your phone Dial one of the below numbers and enter the Webinar ID: 885 6835 2100 +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/kbEgyMKe59 Page 2 of 21  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 14, 2023 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Terri Harding, Principal Planner & Project Manager Elena Domingo, Associate Planner Subject: Deliberations: RIVER ROAD-SANTA CLARA NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS AND RIVER ROAD-SANTA CLARA NEIGHBORHOOD-SPECIFIC CODE AMENDMENTS (City Files MA 23-5 and CA 23-3 & County File 509-PA23- 05532) ACTION REQUESTED At this work session, Planning Commission will begin deliberations on the proposed River Road- Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan adoption package. Staff will present topics raised in testimony and questions from Commissioners following the joint public hearing held with Lane County on October 17, 2023. BACKGROUND The City of Eugene and Lane County have been working with the River Road Community Organization (RRCO) and Santa Clara Community Organization (SCCO) since 2017 to create a new Neighborhood Plan. After thorough community outreach, goal and policy development, analysis, coordination, review cycles, and legal review, an adoption package has been assembled and is proceeding through the public hearing process. The adoption package consists of amendments to the Eugene Code that would establish River Road and Santa Clara neighborhood-specific code standards as well as amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to repeal the 1987 River Road Santa-Clara Urban Facilities Plan, adopt a new River Road-Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan, and amend the Metro Plan to remove Chapter II Section F from the Metro Plan. A summary of the adoption package components is provided in Attachment A. The October 17, 2023 public hearing packet includes a detailed summary of the proposed adoption package components, project background, and other materials. Fifteen individuals provided testimony at the hearing, and the Planning Commission record was held open for two weeks, through October 31, 2023 to allow additional testimony, which has been provided to the Commission. All written testimony submitted through the close of the Planning Commission record can also be found on the City’s land use application website. Commissioners also asked a variety of questions which have been addressed with a staff memo, organized under general topic headings, included as Attachment B. The topics addressed in Attachment B are grouped into the following categories: Page 3 of 21  1. General Issues and Questions 2. Code Amendments – Prohibited Uses 3. Code Amendments – Building Height Reduction 4. Metro Plan Amendments – Repeal of 1987 Urban Facilities Plan Categories 2, 3, and 4 include various options the Commission may consider during deliberations. To help inform building height discussions, staff is attaching a memo from Rowell Brokaw Architects that evaluated a previous version of the proposed code but contains relevant background information (Attachment C). At this first meeting, staff is seeking discussion and direction from the Commission on which option to pursue for the topics in categories 2, 3, and 4 above. Commissioners may choose to make motions to advance a particular option or a variation on an option staff has presented. Once the Commission provides direction on a given topic, staff will follow up as needed and bring revised materials and findings to a second deliberations meeting, tentatively scheduled for December 5, 2023. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY The proposed Metro Plan Amendments are subject to Type II Metro Plan Amendment procedures (EC 9.7700 through 9.7750) and the approval criteria in EC 9.8190. The proposed Land Use Code Amendments are subject to Type V application (legislative) procedures (EC 9.7500 through EC 9.7560), as well as the approval criteria in EC 9.8065. Notice of the public hearing on this subject was provided consistent with the notice requirements for Type II Metro Plan Amendment procedures and Type V (legislative) land use application procedures, and all written testimony received through October 31, 2023 has been provided to the Planning Commission for consideration. All testimony submitted to the Planning Commission, as well as testimony submitted after October 31, 2023 at 5:00pm, will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration as part of their subsequent public hearing process. As a courtesy, written testimony received by the City, along with a variety of additional information including prior meeting materials and recordings, can also be found on the City’s project website which also includes a link to the land use application site. NEXT STEPS Further deliberations are tentatively scheduled for the Planning Commission’s December 5, 2023, meeting at which the Commission may reach a recommendation on the proposed adoption package. Following Planning Commission’s recommendation, Lane County Planning Commission will hold their deliberations and form a recommendation. Then City Council will hold a joint public hearing with the Lane County Board of Commissioners and each body will hold work sessions as needed before taking final action. ATTACHMENTS A. Summary of Adoption Package components B. Staff Response Memo Addressing Key Topic Areas C. Rowell Brokaw Architects Site Evaluation Memo Page 4 of 21 FOR MORE INFORMATION More information regarding the River Road Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan project can be found on the project webpage or by contacting staff directly: Terri Harding, Principal Planner Elena Domingo, Associate Planner Telephone: (541) 682-5635 Telephone: (541) 682-5002 Staff E-Mail: THarding@eugene-or.gov Staff E-Mail: EDomingo@eugene-or.gov Page 5 of 21  Attachment A Summary of River Road-Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan Adoption Package Components Metro Plan Amendments The proposal involves a Metro Plan Amendment to be considering by the City of Eugene and Lane County to: • repeal the 1987 River Road Santa-Clara Urban Facilities Plan • adopt the new River Road- Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan • remove Chapter II Section F from the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and references to this section in the Table of Contents and Chapter II Introduction Land Use Code Amendments The proposal involves a City of Eugene Land Use Code Amendment to establish River Road and Santa Clara neighborhood-specific code amendments within the city limits, as follows: • In the C-2 Community Commercial Zone, applies the following design standards: o Limit building height to 60 feet (current limit is 120 feet). o Apply transition standards (setbacks, landscaping, and/or fencing) to new buildings and building additions that increase the square footage of floor area by 20% or more for any development on property abutting Low Density Residential (R-1) zoned land. o Require buildings fronting River Road to provide a main entrance facing that street or to the corner where River Road and another street intersect. o Increase the minimum percentage of the street facing building façade that must be within the maximum front yard setback, from 25% to 80%. o Require minimum percentage of windows along the ground floor of street facing facades and prohibit blank walls of more than 20 linear feet of any façade. o Require weather protection features over all building entrances. • In the C-2 Community Commercial Zone, prohibits the establishment of the following uses: o Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental/Service, excluding recreational vehicles and heavy trucks o Motorcycle Sales/Rental/Service o Recreational Vehicles and Heavy Truck, Sales/Rental/Service o Agricultural Machinery Rental/Sales/Service o Boat and Watercraft Sales/Service o Equipment, Heavy, Rental/Sales/Service – includes truck and tractor sales o Storage Facility, Household/Consumer Goods, enclosed • In the R-1 Low Density Residential Zone, allows the “Display and Sale of Agricultural Products Grown Offsite” as a permitted use and include limits to size of display, hours of operation, and signage in keeping with “small scale.” • Amends Table 9.8010 and corresponding figure to remove reference to the 1987 River Road- Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan and add the new River Road- Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan • Adds adjustment review criteria specific to River Road-Santa Clara under EC 9.8030(39). • Removes policies in EC 9.9610 related to the 1987 River Road- Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Page 6 of 21  Attachment B MEMORANDUM To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Terri Harding, Principal Planner Subject: Commissioner Ques�ons and Key Issues Date: November 14, 2023 _________________________________________________________________________________ This memo includes additional information to assist with the Commission’s deliberations on the River Road Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan adoption process. 1. General Issues & Questions a. What outreach was done to businesses about the proposed code amendments? Throughout the neighborhood planning process, community outreach has been a priority. The Public Engagement Summary (Attachment C, Exhibit A of the public hearing packet) details the activities that have been included over the life of the project. This includes targeted business outreach during the corridor study process, and letters sent specifically to C-2 Community Commercial property owners and business tenants in June 2023 alerting them to the proposed code amendments and inviting them to an on-line information session. The most recent mailing was the Planning Commission public hearing notice sent in September. b. What are next steps for implementing the Neighborhood Plan? Once the Neighborhood Plan is adopted, it will become official guidance for decision making at the City and County levels. In addition, staff have committed to meeting with River Road and Santa Clara leaders annually to continue prioritizing projects listed in the Action Plan for implementation. The tools vary, and the process for implementation will involve partners across many departments, agencies, and community groups. c. How were members selected for the various committees/groups/boards – Community Advisory Committee (CAC), Working Groups, River Road Community Organization (RRCO), Santa Clara Community Organization (SCCO), Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Sounding Board? Page 7 of 21  RRCO and SCCO are community organizations officially recognized by the City and must meet certain guidelines to maintain that status. Their boards are elected by a majority of their general members who are in good standing and present for the vote. The CAC was established based on nominations from RRCO and SCCO and approved by the Eugene Planning Commission. The Working Groups were opt-in groups of neighbors interested in working on specific topics, and the TBL Sounding Board was formed by City staff using existing boards, commissions, committees and groups. More information is included in the Neighborhood Plan on pages 17-18. 2. Code Amendments – Prohibited Uses In the C-2 Community Commercial Zone, the proposed code amendments prohibit the establishment of the following uses throughout River Road and Santa Clara: • Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental/Service, excluding recrea�onal vehicles and heavy trucks • Motorcycle Sales/Rental/Service • Recrea�onal Vehicles and Heavy Truck, Sales/Rental/Service • Agricultural Machinery Rental/Sales/Service • Boat and Watercra� Sales/Service • Equipment, Heavy, Rental/Sales/Service – includes truck and tractor sales • Storage Facility, Household/Consumer Goods, enclosed Concern has been raised in verbal and written testimony about the proposed list of prohibited uses affecting existing uses by causing them to become nonconforming. Existing established businesses will be allowed to continue operating; however, a use that was legally established but no longer complies with the allowed uses in the land use code is considered a legal nonconforming use and the use cannot be expanded or intensified. The proposed code amendments would not prohibit any existing uses or businesses, but they would limit the expansion and intensification of existing businesses in the use list above and they would prohibit new businesses in the use list above. There are options to address concerns from businesses operating with uses proposed to be prohibited. One option is to carve out the property located on the north side of River Avenue, between the wastewater treatment plant and Beltline Highway, as shown on the map on the next page. Carving out River Ave would mean that the listed prohibited uses would not apply in the River Ave area. It would also recognize the industrial nature of many of the land uses in this part of the neighborhood, while responding to testimony from property owners and businesses concerned about the code amendments. The carve out option could also encourage properties zoned I-2 Light Medium Industrial to eventually rezone to C-2 as planned in the Metro Plan and 1987 Urban Facilities Plan. 2 Page 8 of 21 3. Code Amendments – Building Height Reduction Reducing the maximum height of buildings in the corridor has been a high priority expressed in community input from the beginning of the neighborhood planning process in 2017. Early corridor study workshops resulted in a concept of roughly five-story buildings, 60-75 feet in height along the corridor, transitioning to roughly three-story buildings 35-50 feet near the corridor, and finally the currently allowed 30 feet (37 with a pitched roof) buildings in the R-1 Low Density Residential zoned areas of the neighborhood. Based on the totality of the work from 2017 to current, the proposed reduction in building height was pulled forward from the draft Special Area Zone and included in the neighborhood-specific code amendments. To address Commissioner questions about limiting buildings to 60 feet and more information on options, staff researched buildings throughout Eugene and found examples of various heights and code limits. For example, the Walnut Station Special Area Zone limits buildings to seven stories along Franklin Boulevard, but “five stories not to exceed 65 feet” in two subareas near Garden Avenue. This 65 foot standard seems closest to the concept discussed throughout the corridor study process, where community input focused on the difference between the River Road corridor and downtown corridors near the University of Oregon, such as Franklin Boulevard. Further information is available in a memo from Rowell Brokaw Architects dated September 26, 2022 (Attachment C to the November 14, 2023 Planning Commission agenda item summary). Although this memo was written to evaluate and provide feedback on a previous version of the Special Area Zone, it contains useful information about building height, and assumed 65 foot tall buildings on three test case sites on River Road. Staff would support increasing the proposed building height limit to 65 feet based on this information. 3 Page 9 of 21 There are other options that the Commission could pursue as well, including not limiting building height in the plan area, although staff would not recommend this option based on the importance of this issue to the community throughout the process. Concern about impacting development potential or Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI): The proposed code amendments do not impact the City's adopted supply of commercial or industrial lands for employment development 1. No land is being re-designated and the amendments do not otherwise diminish the lands available for employment use. At the time the adopted BLI was developed, the capacity of the Vacant and Partially Vacant land supply for new employment development was based on historical employment densities of existing development. The historical development trends that the employment density was based on consisted of buildings of varying heights in sample sites throughout the city. This BLI employment capacity is not directly derived from the square footage of a building, but the capacity for a number of jobs per acre. Setbacks and height limitations do not necessarily limit the employee capacity on a site. A small amount of additional jobs capacity was also assumed city-wide, through redevelopment of Developed BLI land, which also considered a variety of building forms. The Employment Land Supply Study also assumed that existing buildings would accommodate a portion of the new jobs without any change to the building footprint. Additionally, in the C-2 zone, the list of uses is very broad and even allows building housing-only structures. We do not know how any particular property is going to develop, some properties will develop at maximum capacity and some below, so there is not an assumption that all buildable land will develop to its maximum capacity. Therefore, when determining BLI employment capacity, the City took this into account by generally assuming future land capacity based on average levels of development. For these reasons, the proposed height limit and setback requirements will not impact the supply or availability of employment lands included in the City’s adopted BLI. 4. Metro Plan Amendments – Repeal of the 1987 Urban Facilities Plan a. What prompted the initial pursuit of a new neighborhood plan? b. Can the 1987 Urban Facilities Plan be amended instead of repealed and replaced? Why wasn’t this the path that was chosen? c. Can we layer the new Neighborhood Plan on top of the 1987 plan? d. Is it possible to do a land use diagram? What are the options? e. Will there be a parcel-specific diagram for outside the City/inside the UGB? f. Without a more focused land use diagram, won’t there be less direction and certainty for property owners and businesses? a. What prompted the initial pursuit of a new neighborhood plan? 1 As provided in Part IV, Employment Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) of the Envision Eugene Employment Land Supply Study (ELSS) (2012-2032). 4 Page 10 of 21 A number of planning efforts have occurred in River Road and Santa Clara in the years since the Urban Facilities Plan was adopted, leading up to and informing the formal Neighborhood Planning process that began in 2017. a. Ini�ated in 2007 and acknowledged by the Eugene Planning Commission in 2009, the Lower River Road Concept Plan supported planning efforts for the Rasor Mixed-Use Center. Lower River Road was iden�fied in the regional transporta�on system plan, TransPlan (2001), as a poten�al area for mixed-use redevelopment. This planning process brought diverse elements of the community together to propose over thirty recommenda�ons related to the vision for Lower River Road and to evaluate implementa�on strategies related to sustainability, transporta�on, and land use. b. RRCO and SCCO joined together in February 2011 on an ambi�ous public outreach project to survey area residents and iden�fy priori�es for the future development of both neighborhoods, known as the Santa Clara-River Road Outreach and Learning (SCRROL) project. They iden�fied community priori�es and facilitated community dialogue on land use, governance, parks and recrea�on, and transporta�on. This outreach work resulted in a Report and Recommenda�ons document that included key findings about what was important to the neighborhood residents and a list of recommenda�ons. c. SCRROL’s Report and Recommenda�ons included a recommenda�on to form a new advocacy group named the Santa Clara-River Road Implementa�on Planning Team (SCRRIPT), a task force to be composed of River Road and Santa Clara representa�ves to work on common goals. SCRRIPT would func�on similar to SCRROL but was created to be more proac�ve in advoca�ng for specific solu�ons and implemen�ng the goals iden�fied by SCRROL. Throughout the SCRROL and SCRRIPT planning ini�a�ves, the community organiza�ons dedicated countless volunteer hours in reaching out to and engaging neighbors. The results of these previous planning processes formed a founda�on for the Neighborhood Plan. The Neighborhood Plan Project Charter reads, “Adopted in 1987, the plan is dated and a new plan for this large part of the community with unique planning issues is needed. The River Road and Santa Clara Community Organiza�ons have dedicated innumerable volunteer hours to build a founda�on of public input on which to build the neighborhood planning process.” b. Can the 1987 Urban Facilities Plan be amended instead of repealed and replaced? Why wasn’t this the path that was chosen? As addressed in the previous question, the previous planning efforts from the River Road and Santa Clara communities recognized that a plan this old should be replaced with a new plan based on current outreach efforts and updated approaches to planning practice. As the new neighborhood plan was developed, the policies and themes from the 1987 Urban Facilities Plan that met the neighborhood’s current priorities were carried over into the new neighborhood plan. In addition, other planning tools such as the parcel-specific land use diagram are in the process of being created at a city-wide scale. While it would have been possible to conduct a 5 Page 11 of 21 planning process to amend the 1987 Urban Facilities Plan, the planning team started with the idea of creating a new plan from the beginning. c. Can we layer the new neighborhood plan on top of the 1987 plan? The City could adopt the new neighborhood plan without repealing the 1987 Urban Facilities Plan. However, in the event of any inconsistencies, staff would recommend creating an introductory statement clarifying the purpose of the new plan and the relationship between the plans. In addition, staff would recommend a statement describing the intended replacement of the 1987 Urban Facilities Plan Diagram and associated policies with the city-wide land use diagram upon its adoption. d.) Is it possible to do a land use diagram? What are the options? There are multiple options regarding the land use diagram. The current proposal is to move forward with the proposed Neighborhood Plan that does not include a land use diagram, and to repeal the 1987 Urban Facili�es Plan and its associated land use diagram. Without a land use diagram for the area, the Metro Plan diagram would apply. The City has started work on a city- wide parcel-specific land use diagram and is aiming to have this diagram adopted as part of the City’s comprehensive plan by 2026. Because neither the Metro Plan diagram nor the exis�ng 1987 Plan diagram are parcel specific, and because of the general outdated nature of the 1987 plan, staff recommend the repeal of the 1987 Plan and land use diagram and reliance on the Metro Plan Diagram un�l the parcel-specific land use diagram is developed and adopted in the Envision Eugene comprehensive plan. However, tes�mony has been submited that argues for keeping the 1987 Plan in place along with the new Neighborhood Plan, with the inten�on of deciding what to do with the 1987 Plan at the same �me the City decides how to address other refinement plans once a city-wide plan diagram and policies are adopted. Staff can support this op�on as well, and if the Planning Commission is interested in this, would bring back language that would need to be added to the new Neighborhood Plan to address the rela�onship between the two plans (i.e., the new Neighborhood Plan would control in cases of conflict). Since the two plans serve different purposes, this op�on appears to be technically viable as well. A third op�on would be to import certain parts of the 1987 Plan into the new Neighborhood Plan. This op�on could be problema�c in a few ways. There are many varia�ons of which parts of the old plan to carry forward, and no easy way to make the decision. There does not appear to be a compelling reason to do this, and it would therefore appear to add �me and complexity to the process unnecessarily. e. Will there be a parcel-specific diagram for outside the City/inside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)? 6 Page 12 of 21 The parcel-specific diagram that will be adopted as part of the City’s comprehensive plan will include all parcels within the UGB. f. Without a more focused land use diagram, won’t there be less direction and certainty for property owners and businesses? It depends. Neither the 1987 Urban Facilities Plan land diagram nor the Metro Plan land diagram are parcel-specific. After adoption of the 1987 Urban Facilities Plan, the UFP diagram was incorporated into the Metro Plan Diagram in 2004. Any parcel-specific amendments that were made to the UFP land use diagram have also amended the Metro Plan diagram and will remain if the UFP diagram is repealed. The scale of the UFP land use diagram is somewhat larger than the Metro Plan diagram, but whether there is more specificity in the UFP diagram is situational, depending on where the property is located and how it is designated. Some of the current land use policies in the UFP are ambiguous, perpetuating uncertainty and barriers to development. Removing these policies by repealing the 1987 UFP could actually add clarity for development in the area. 7 Page 13 of 21  Attachment C September 26, 2022 To: Colin McArthur, Cameron McCarthy From: John Rowell and Greg Brokaw, Rowell Brokaw Architects, Inc. Re: Code Review and Testing on 3 Sites Introduction The proposed River Road-Santa Clara Special Area Zone (SAZ) is designed to support implementation of the Neighborhood Plan vision along the River Road corridor. The proposed SAZ is a tool to implement some of the land use actions identified in the Action Plan. The code includes corridor mixed-use and residential design objectives directed at building and site design that are intended to promote: • Cohesive architecture that is visually appealing, • Walkable, safe, and active streetscape, • Walkable neighborhood centers, • Residential livability, • Inviting and safe entrance areas, • Reduced vehicular uses impacts on the pedestrian environment, • Highly functional open spaces. Site testing is used to examine the feasibility of code concepts using development scenarios for actual sites within the River Road-Santa Clara Neighborhood Special Area Zone boundary. This analysis is a review of specific development scenario diagrams for three sites initially provided by Cameron McCarthy with diagrammatic suggestions for how these diagrams may be adjusted or refined to illustrate feasible development scenarios provided by Rowell Brokaw Architects. Based on these three site diagrams, we identify plausible redevelopment scenarios, potential barriers to desirable development in the Draft Code, and propose adjustments to the Code. Development Assumptions The analysis and recommendations are based on general assumptions that housing, specifically multi-family housing, will be a driver of future development in the study area based on current market conditions. The sites that front River Road are assumed to have commercial potential. Potential for viable mixed use on the River Road sites is examined, generally maximizing housing capacity while accommodating the potential for at least some active commercial at the ground level. 1. Site Testing | Small Site This is a 7,573 SF site located in COR-RES that does not front River Road. A rectangular building oriented perpendicular to the street with tuck-under parking is able to achieve the Page 1 of 4 Page 14 of 21 maximum allowed density of 4 units. These units could be flats or two-story units that touch the ground beyond the parking. The diagram illustrates a simpler rowhouse configuration that can be achieved parallel to the street with 3 units and 3 surface parking spaces located in the back of the property. Draft Code considerations • The setback requirement as it is written translates to a building facade that must adhere to at least 60% of the build-to line (setback). This line is curved in this instance, adding unnecessary complication to the building form. The diagram illustrates a stepped solution that meets the intent but would require flexibility to the building façade standard. For further discussion and a proposed modification to this code, see discussion of setbacks below. • Setbacks, parking requirements, and site requirements all seem reasonable when applied to this site. • This would be a smaller scale development but based on our experience could be a viable infill development. 2. Site Testing | Medium Site This is a 13,873 SF site located in COR-MU with River Road frontage and frontage along a side street. We believe the most efficient and most likely housing solution on this site is a rectangular footprint, approximately 3,300 SF per floor with 4 units per floor. At 3 floors this could be served by a single stair located in the center of the building. The units at the top floor could have an internal upper floor with internal stairs to provide larger units at this level. An alternative is 4 full floors of housing, elevator served, and requiring two exit stairs. The full 4 floor version with a hallway could achieve a higher unit count per floor and a higher overall density but comes at the cost of a more complex building and would require more on-site parking. Some ground floor commercial is possible in this configuration and is generally more viable if it is not too deep. In this configuration one or two 1000 SF tenant spaces along River Road may be desirable. Draft Code Considerations • Interior side yard setbacks abutting R-1 at 10 feet are larger than necessary if the proposed use is parking. Larger setbacks in these situations can create planting zones that are difficult to manage and are less desirable than a more compact screened zone. • Ability to adjust the front yard setback along the side street would be important on this side street to accommodate double loaded parking on the site. This site is 5 feet too narrow to meet the 60 foot depth for double loaded parking standards. • The setback requirement as it is written translates to a building facade that must adhere to at least 80% of the build-to line (setback). This line is angled in this instance, adding unnecessary complication to the building form. For further discussion and a proposed modification to the draft code, see below. Page 2 of 4 Page 15 of 21 3. Site Testing | Large Site This is a 34,872 SF site located in COR-MU with River Road frontage, side alley access, and an irregular shaped portion of the site connecting to a neighboring side street. The irregular shape suggests a development strategy aligning with the intent of the code: a building fronting River Road with parking extending across the broad, irregularly shaped rear area of the site. The building scenarios could be rectangular block with units flanking a double loaded corridor, a U-shaped courtyard configuration opening to the south-west, or an L-shaped building with a leg along River Road (shown in diagram). This would likely be a 4 or 5 story elevator-served housing with 12-14 units per floor, depending on unit type. Parking capacity is approximately 38 spaces. With parking reductions this would satisfy the parking requirements for the building at 4 and possibly 5 stories. Draft Code Considerations • Consider allowing public active site spaces to qualify as part of the 80% building frontage along River Road. This would allow food or retail uses to open to a courtyard space that increases useable commercial frontage and can create attractive and active spaces along the street. • Consider allowing head-in parking off the alley. This alley is wide enough to allow backup space. The addition of head-in parking would support ground level retail in this location. • The setback requirement as it is written translates to a building façade that must adhere to at least 80% of the build-to line (setback). For further discussion and a proposed modification to the draft code, see below. Overall Assessment, Potential Barriers, and Recommendations With the exception of the specific points below, the proposed RRSC Code Amendments do not present significant barriers to the types of mixed-use, housing, and commercial development envisioned. The Code encourages buildings to be built with street frontage and discourages parking between the buildings and the street. Density ranges and height limitations align with typical building types and construction types. The COR-MU standards are not overly prescriptive in terms of ground floor commercial and allow reasonable flexibility in the amount of commercial. Potential Barriers to Desirable Development 1. For development within COR-MU, 9.3865 7(a) requires a minimum of 80 percent of the street facing ground floor building façade to be built to the minimum front yard setback of 10 feet. a) This translates to a definitive build-to line. Variations in thicknesses of assemblies makes a precise build-to line difficult to achieve in an actual building. It is also challenging for River Road sites having angled frontages relate to property shape, or curved, as was the case in the Small Site study. The same intent would be met if a zone of setback were defined for the required frontage. It could be 3 to 5 feet, which would have the same impact of frontage continuity and provide reasonable flexibility and tolerance for building location. b) The 80 percent frontage requirement precludes street-facing courtyard spaces that have proven to be successful in other commercial districts and would meet Page 3 of 4 Page 16 of 21  the overall goals of activated, pedestrian-oriented commercial development. One example is the corner plaza at Amazon Corner Apartments in Eugene. There are examples of commercial courts in Portland that have been successful on busier streets. c) Flexibility in the setback requirement could allow elements such as porches in both the COR-MU and COR-RES to extend into the setback, possibly making these desirable elements feasible on constrained sites (see Site Testing | Small Site). 2. Side yard setbacks listed in Table 9.3865 are generally reasonable. The analysis of the Medium Site, however, demonstrates conditions where the setback could be smaller to accommodate more desirable types of development. For example, the 10 foot side yard transition from R-1 may be necessary as a building setback, but it is bigger than necessary for parking. Larger landscaped setbacks can be harder to maintain and can have unintended consequences. The Medium Site testing demonstrates a desirable transition between R-1 and middle-housing scaled rowhouses. The 10 foot setback to the driveway is not necessary here. 3. It is our experience that Building Articulation standards such as described in 9.3865 add complexity to development but do not prevent bad design. They often work against the stated goal of the code to promote “cohesive architecture that is visually appealing.” We recommend eliminating this section. a) If it is retained, we recommend adding “recessed windows” to the list of design features in 9.3865 (a). The most obvious problem with large expanses of uninterrupted walls is that typical residential windows do not offer depth that creates pleasing articulation and scale. With the shift toward more stringent energy codes, buildings are being clad in exterior insulation, making recessed windows more feasible. b) Recessed covered entries should be allowed in addition to the additive cover options described in 9.3865 (c). Page 4 of 4 Page 17 of 21  CODE STANDARD COR-RES TEST SITE Density 13-28 units per acre 3 Units Building Height 55' maximum 40' (including 5' ground floor height bonus and 10' small lot or affordable housing 15' Front Yard Setback bonus) Vehicle Parking 1 per dwelling unit + 3 spaces 1 per 330 SF of (2,130 SF) commercial space = 4 spaces required (800 SF) C Bicycle Parking 1 per dwelling unit + 1 3 spaces per 3,000 SF of (50 SF) B commercial space = 4 spaces required A (50 SF) Landscape/Hardscape 20% 48% (Setbacks, landscape (1,515 SF) (3,620 SF) area, pedestrian circulation, stormwater treatment, and open 115' space) 87' Buildings facing Stephens Drive Parking: Landscape/Hardscape: A shall provide a main entrance 2,130 SF 3,620 SF facing that street. Buildings facing other streets shall provide at least Residential (3 Floors): one main entrance facing a street. 5,472 SF A minimum of 60% of the street 5' Building Total: B facing ground floor building facade 5' 5,472 SF shall be built to the minimum front 5' yard setback of 15 feet. Building 73' Parking access for residential units Parking C shall be from an existing alley or from a mid-block internal access Landscape/ lane or alley. Hardscape 0' 10' 20' 40' RRSC Code Amendments 17-04-24-42-03200 Site Testing | Small Site 7,573 SF September 27, 2022 City of Eugene Page 18 of 21 COR-RES 1" = 20'-0"  CODE STANDARD COR-MU TEST SITE Density N/A 12 Units Building Height 75' maximum (including 5' ground floor 65' height bonus and 10' small lot or affordable housing bonus) Vehicle Parking 1 per dwelling unit + 1 per 330 SF of 19 spaces commercial space = 30 spaces required (6,490 SF) Commercial (Ground Floor): (6,000 SF) 2,632 SF 25% reduction as right development = 22 Residential (3 Floors): spaces (4,400 SF) 7,896 SF Bicycle Parking 1 per dwelling unit + 1 per 3,000 SF of 13 spaces commercial space = 13 spaces required (150 SF) 5' Interior Yard Setback Building (Total): (150 SF) 10,528 SF Landscape/Hardscape 20% 34% (Setbacks, landscape area, (2,775 SF) (4,750 SF) pedestrian circulation, stormwater treatment, and open space) 186' 10' Interior Yard Setback ard Abutting R-1 F ro nt Y (Transition Option 1) 10' ack Setb Parking: 61' Buildings facing River Road 6,490 SF A shall provide a main 70' A entrance facing that street. B A minimum of 80% of the street facing ground floor building facade shall be B built to the minimum front Landscape/Hardscape: yard setback of 10 feet. 4,750 SF Building 13' C Parking access for Parking residential units shall be from an existing alley or Landscape/ C from a mid-block internal Hardscape 198' access lane or alley. RRSC Code Amendments 17-04-14-14-01100 0' 10' 20' 40' Site Testing | Medium Site 13,873 SF September 27, 2022 Hamid (Dehoti, LLC) Page 19 of 21 COR-MU 1" = 20'-0"  CODE STANDARD COR-MU TEST SITE Density N/A 20 Units Building Height 75' maximum (including 5' ground floor 65' height bonus and 10' small lot or affordable housing bonus) Vehicle Parking 1 per dwelling unit + 1 per 330 SF of 9 spaces commercial space = 30 spaces required (4,700 SF) (6,000 SF) 25% reduction as right development = 22 spaces (4,400 SF) Bicycle Parking 1 per dwelling unit + 1 per 3,000 SF of 9 spaces commercial space = 21 spaces required (250 SF) 5' Interior Yard Setback Residential (3 Floors): 15,050 SF (250 SF) Landscape/Hardscape 20% 30% Building (Total): (Setbacks, landscape area, (2,775 SF) (4,130 SF) 15,050 SF pedestrian circulation, stormwater treatment, and open space) 186' Yard 5' Interior Yard Setback 0 ' F ront k 1 ac Setb Parking: 4,700 SF 61' Buildings facing River Road A shall provide a main 70' A entrance facing that street. B A minimum of 80% of the street facing ground floor building facade shall be built to the minimum front yard setback of 10 feet. Building Landscape/Hardscape: 4,130 SF B 13' Parking access for C Parking residential units shall be from an existing alley or Landscape/ C from a mid-block internal Hardscape 198' access lane or alley. RRSC Code Amendments 17-04-14-14-01100 0' 10' 20' 40' Site Testing | Medium Site 13,873 SF September 27, 2022 Hamid (Dehoti, LLC) Page 20 of 21 COR-MU 1" = 20'-0"  36' CODE STANDARD COR-MU TEST SITE 10' Density N/A 51 Units Building Height 75' maximum 65' (including 5' ground floor height bonus and 10' small lot or affordable housing bonus) Vehicle Parking 1 per dwelling unit + 34 spaces 1 per 330 SF of (13,690 SF) commercial space = 178' 77 spaces required 185' (15,400 SF) Commercial (Ground Floor): 3,150 SF Residential (4 Floors): Bicycle Parking 1 per dwelling unit + 53 spaces 43,328 SF 1 per 3000 SF of (640 SF) commercial space = Building (Total): 46,178 SF 53 spaces required (640 SF) 114' Landscape/Hardscape 20% 34% (Setbacks, landscape (6,975 SF) (11,760 SF) Parking: area, pedestrian 13,690 SF circulation, stormwater treatment, and open space) A 149' Buildings facing River Road B A shall provide a main entrance facing that street. 94' Set back A minimum of 80% of the Landscape/ Yard ro n t B Hardscape: 10' F street facing ground floor 11,760 SF building facade shall be built to the minimum front ack d Setb yard setback of 10 feet. Y ar 10' erior Building 5' Int Parking access for C C residential units shall be Parking 206' from an existing alley or Landscape/ from a mid-block internal Hardscape access lane or alley. 0' 20' 40' 80' RRSC Code Amendments 17-04-11-41-08600 Site Testing | Large Site 34,872 SF September 27, 2022 Rick Duncan Page 21 of 21 COR-MU 1" = 40'-0"