HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2E: Downtown Zoning Dist.EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Initiation of Code Amendment for Downtown Zoning District
Meeting Date: July 18, 2005 Agenda Item Number: 2E
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Nan Laurence
www. eugene-or, gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5340
ISSUE STATEMENT
A Downtown Plan implementation strategy calls for the creation of a single zone to unify the downtown
core and to support downtown development. Initiating a code amendment is the first step in the
implementation of this strategy. This action does not approve any changes to the Land Use Code, but
launches the public discussion on how to better support downtown development and implement related
Downtown Plan and Growth Management policies.
BACKGROUND
The concept of a downtown zoning district was first included in the Downtown Vision, approved by
City Council in November 2000. The vision included the following Key Next Step to support
downtown development:
Create a new zoning district for the downtown that promotes multi-story structures with mixed uses,
and emphasizes street-level activity along the Great Streets. Consider Design Review. (Page 9)
The council funded the implementation of six Key Next Steps in April 2001. The concept of a new
zoning district was included in the task of updating the Downtown Plan. In April 2004, the updated
Downtown Plan was adopted by the council. The plan contained the following implementation strategy:
Create a single zone to unify the downtown core, including the new Federal Courthouse and
riverfront areas. Consider amendments to an existing commercial zone, such as C-2 or C-3, and
overlay zones such as lTD,/ND, and the Broadway Overlay Zone. (Page 14)
As part of the implementation of the Downtown Plan, Planning and Development Department (PDD)
staff reviewed downtown zoning regulations with the Planning Commission on May 10, 2004. The
Planning Commission requested that staff work with the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee
(ERAC) to identify issues and options in more detail. PDD staff met with ERAC members five times
between July 2004 and February 2005.
ERAC identified issues within existing zoning regulations that hindered desired downtown
development. These included the myriad of downtown-related, often inconsistent regulations, as well as
specific requirements within C-2, C-3, the/TD overlay, and bike parking regulations. In response to the
issues identified, ERAC members recommended a strategy to modify existing regulations rather than
add additional regulatory layers. Specifically, the ERAC-recommended strategy focuses on revising the
existing/TD overlay to serve as a Downtown Overlay District.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050718\S0507182E.doc
On March 14, 2005, ERAC forwarded its recommendations to the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission recommended that PDD staff undertake a detailed analysis of the strategy proposed by
ERAC. The minutes of that meeting are included as Attachment A to this Agenda Item Summary and
provide further information on the issues discussed.
City Council initiation of the code amendment is the first step in implementing the recommended
strategy. This action will set in motion a series of public hearings, work sessions and public workshops
to effectively and comprehensively address the concept of a new or revised overlay district to support
desired development downtown.
Financial and/or Resource Considerations
No additional financial assistance is requested for this project. Project costs will be covered through
existing departmental work assignments.
Timing
Prompt action is recommended. The momentum for downtown development is growing, and significant
discussion of new projects is underway. Timely action to begin the dialogue on amending the land use
code to include an appropriate overlay zoning district for downtown will help support and encourage
desired downtown development.
Council Goals/Action Priorities
This project addresses implementation strategies and policies from the Downtown Plan. This project
does not directly address or affect City Council goals or priorities.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
Relevant Growth Management Policies include the following:
Policy 1 Support the existing Eugene Urban Growth Boundary by taking actions to
increase density and use existing vacant land and under-used land within the
boundary more efficiently.
Policy 2 Encourage in-fill, mixed-use, redevelopment, and higher density development.
Policy 3 Encourage a mix of businesses and residential uses downtown using incentives
and zoning.
The first three Growth Management Policies address the importance of compact development and
density. Policy #2 specifically encourages higher density development within existing development
areas. Policy #3 refers to the role of zoning in the effort to encourage desired development downtown.
Relevant Downtown Plan polices include the following:
· Downtown development shall support the urban qualities of density, vitality, livability and
diversity to create a downtown, urban environment.
· Stimulate multi-unit housing in the downtown core and on the edges of downtown for a
variety of income levels and ownership opportunities.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050718\S0507182E.doc
· Facilitate dense development in the Courthouse area and other sites between the core of
downtown and the river.
· Reinforce residential use in neighborhoods abutting the downtown commercial core to help
contain commercial activity in downtown and maintain the historic character and livability of
adjacent neighborhoods.
The Downtown Plan policies reinforce the commitment to emphasize downtown Eugene as a strong
regional center, and a diverse, dense, economically strong urban center. The first three policies above
specifically encourage the transformation of vacant and underutilized sites and the development of dense
commercial, residential, and cultural activities.
The fourth policy above addresses the need to concentrate dense commercial activities in the downtown
core, rather than encouraging commercial activities to replace existing housing along the edges of
downtown. The strategy of creating a downtown overlay district speaks to this concern by focusing new
or revised regulations in the downtown core rather than in the surrounding neighborhoods as with the
existing/TD overlay.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The council can choose to initiate the code amendment, or decline to initiate the code amendment. The
council can also request additional information before deciding whether or not to initiate.
If the council chooses to initiate the code amendment, such an amendment is processed as a Type V
application, requiring public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council before action is
taken by the council to approve or deny the amendment.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the council initiate a code amendment to create a downtown overlay
district.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to initiate a code amendment to create a downtown overlay district.
ATTACHMENT
A. Excerpt from Summary Minutes of Planning Commission meeting, March 14, 2005
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Nan Laurence
Telephone: 682-5340
Staff E-Mail: nan.laurence~ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050718\S0507182E.doc
ATTACHMENT A
EXERPT FROM SUMMARY MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Sloat Room-The Atrium Building-99 West 10tn Avenue
March 14, 2005
11~30 a.m.
PRESENT~ John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath Vice President;, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth,
Anne Marie Levis, members; Mike Sullivan, Acting in Capacity for Tom Coyle, ex offi¢/o
member; Denny Braud, Nan Laurence, Mike McKerrow, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom,
Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Phillip Carroll, Candace Nelson,
Kevin Matthews, Terry Connolly, Charles Biggs, guests.
ABSENT~ Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, members.
III. DISCUSSION: DOWNTOWN ZONE UPDATE
Ms. Laurence reviewed the status of the Downtown Zone Update, noting that the Downtown Vision, and
Key Next Steps had been adopted by the City Council on April 9, 2001, and the Downtown Plan had been
adopted by the City Council on April 12, 2004.
Ms. Laurence said the concept for the project came from the Downtown Vision, with direction from the
Planning Commission to use the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) to review the zoning
issues effecting downtown in detail and return to the Planning Commission with recommendations.
Referring to a map entitled Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone, 1.0 and 2. 0 Floor Area Ratios
on the wall, she said a series of thoughtful discussions had occurred at the ERAC that identified problem
areas in four categories:
· C-2 Community Commercial which required a non-residential ground floor component.
· C-3 Major Commercial that required any surface parking over 20 spaces must be structured.
· /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay problems with the floor area ratio (FAR) requirement,
that presented difficulties in satisfying and making changes to the FAR, and general lack of flexi-
bility.
· Bike Parking.
Ms. Laurence said in response to the issues identified, ERAC members recommended a strategy focused on
revising the existing/TD overlay to serve as a Downtown Overlay District. ERAC agreed that this district
should extend over the entire Downtown Plan area and recommended that the downtown Parking Exempt
area coincide with the Downtown Plan area.
The desired changes to the/TD overlay included provisions to address the issues identified and provide
desired flexibility for properties within the overlay district include:
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission March 14, 2005 Page 1
1. Removing the requirement for nonresidential uses on the ground floor for properties zoned C-2
within the Downtown Plan area.
2. Modifying the limitation on 20 surface spaces for downtown properties zoned C-3.
3. Reducing the FAR required, for both the 2.0 area and the 1.0 area.
4. Changing the criteria for modification of FAR requirements through the Adjustment Review proc-
ess, such as by allowing a taller first floor to count instead of FAR.
5. Revising the/TD boundaries to correspond with the Downtown Plan area.
6. Extending the Parking Exempt area to correspond with the Downtown Plan area.
7. Modify the code to allow for more flexibility in terms of meeting the bike parking requirement.
8. Adding language within the revised/TD regulations which address the Great Streets concept.
Ms. Levis was concerned with the lack of details in number three. She expressed concern that we would
not get what was desired, and would get more of what was not desired. She was concerned that unintended
consequences that occurred during the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) discussions would not be
adequately remedied, adding that the code often kept more desirable development out.
Ms. Laurence said the ERAC conceded that it did not know what the right FAR was, but that density,
height and urban form appropriate for a downtown area was desirable. She said Mr. Braud had provided
information to the ERAC that explained the FAR philosophy for downtown.
Mr. Weinman said that loading zones and bicycle parking, among other uses, reduced the actual size of the
FAR.
Ms. Colbath said it was important to explicitly indicate what was desired versus analytically applying a
number to what was desirable, to prevent discouraging desirable development in the future. She asked
what type of financial and economic data was used by the ERAC to reach the conclusions that the proposed
changes would work for the size of Eugene's downtown versus what the future downtown would look like.
She expressed concern that the Planning Commission was responding to the current situation but not
necessarily looking at what the situation will look like 20 years out, and what the impacts of the kind of
things that will occur over the next 20 years. She asked if other cities were contacted to help determine if
both short and long term changes would ultimately be beneficial.
Mr. Sullivan replied that the ERAC members represented a broad base of experienced professionals who
were drawn from private interests that own and develop property in cities, both inside and outside of this
region. Their direct experience with dealing with this specific set of code requirements in this market was
added to their experience in development in other markets with other codes.
Ms. Laurence said ERAC members consisted of downtown property owners, downtown residents, a
member of the voter pool, and several developers.
Ms. Colbath was concerned about developing at lower densities that would prohibit higher intensity
development in the future knowing there was limited land downtown.
Mr. Lawless noted there were a number of other projects that went sideways in the past two or three years
due to the FAR requirements. He said there was a significant amount of land available in the form of
surface parking lots in C-3 zoned parcels acting as a land bank and holding places. He asked if we were
going to continue to set the bar higher than the market would bear, and cross our fingers and hope
development space would be preserved for 20 years, essentially allowing the current potential opportunities
to be lost. He was more interested in examining the economy of holding places in surface parking lots than
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission March 14, 2005 Page 1
with maintain FAR requirements that could result in lost opportunities in the urban core. He added that
caution should be used when setting artificial goals.
Mr. Hudspeth said he was uncomfortable amending the code to reduce the bicycle parking requirement,
noting that it would discourage bicycle use. He asked if the proposed code change was related to amending
the code for the proposed hospital at the current Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) site.
Ms. Laurence replied the only thing in terms of EWEB was that after the changes were made to the/TD for
downtown, the changes would be extended to the EWEB property so that EWEB would also be covered by
the/TD requirements. Currently, the fact that there was no alley on the EWEB property that provided
grounds for an adjustment review specifically on that property. Approximately one-half of the EWEB
property was included in the/TD. She added that ERAC recommended flexibility in applying the bike
parking standards.
Ms. Levis suggested that the code language be amended to provide for greater flexibility in applying the
bicycle parking requirement.
Mr. Sullivan said approximately 1,300 square feet of bicycle parking, the equivalent of a residential unit,
or a well configured commercial space, was required for the Aurora Building. He asked if it would be
possible to look at parking as a utility which was what the parking exempt zone did, since those buildings
do not need to provide vehicle parking. He asked if it would be possible to incorporate bicycle parking into
the same utility function, pulling it out of buildings and into projects. He added it was a big financial and
configuration issue for developers.
Ms. Colbath asked if property brought into the Riverfront would be parking exempt under the proposed
/TD adjustments. She also asked what the impact of taking away commercial use on the ground floor and
related foot traffic would be.
Ms. Laurence replied there was a map entitled Select Downtown Zoning on page III-9 of the agenda packet
that illustrated the current parking exempt areas, noting that one-half of EWEB was already in the parking
exempt area, and mirrored the/TD. She said there was an expressed value that having more people living
downtown was desirable, while at the same time, there were ground floor commercial spaces that were not
leased. She said having more people living downtown was one way of bringing value and income and
activity downtown. Referring to the Great Streets concept, Ms. Laurence stressed requiring what you
really want where you really want it. There were areas downtown that had that requirement that were not in
core of downtown, but more of a neighborhood area at the edge of the core, where commercial uses,
particularly at a higher FAR, did not need to be required.
Ms. Colbath suggested making the requirement more flexible rather than an absolute value.
Mr. Lawless noted there was consensus that the proposal was generally the direction the Planning
Commission could support.
Ms. Levis asked Ms. Laurence to get comments from Planning Commissioner Rick Duncan who was a
member of ERAC.
Mr. Lawless adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:28 p.m.
(Recorded by Linda Henry)
m:12OOSIplanning and development departmentlplanning divisionlplanning commissionlpcOSO314, doc
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission March 14, 2005 Page 2