Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem C: Mixed-Use Centers EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Work Session: Implementation of Mixed Use (Nodal) Development Program Meeting Date: July 20, 2005 Agenda Item Number: C Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Allen Lowe www. eugette-or, gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5113 ISSUE STATEMENT The council has requested a work session to discuss the relationship of the Mixed Use Development program to adopted City policies. Planning Division staff is seeking City Council confirmation that the current approach to implementation of this program is consistent with adopted policy. BACKGROUND The mixed use (nodal) development concept is at the heart of Eugene's transportation and growth management strategies. Evidence of its prominence is reflected in the fact that the City Council has discussed Mixed Use (Nodal) development more than 100 times over the past eight years in various work sessions and public hearings related to the adoption of TransPlan, the Eugene Growth Management Study, the Land Use Code Update, the Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan, the Eugene Local Street Plan, Bus Rapid Transit and numerous other work items. Since 1992, the Planning Commission and City Council have held joint annual meetings to review the commission's work program and annual report. Mixed use development and mixed use neighborhoods were discussed extensively in the November 2002, July 2003, and October 2004 joint work sessions. Staff expects that the mixed use development program will also be included in the upcoming joint work session scheduled for July 27, 2005. In recent meetings with the council, it has been suggested that the program is out-of-synch with and does not conform to adopted policies, particularly growth management policies. This work session will focus on the Mixed Use Development program' s conformance, or lack thereof, with policies adopted by the council. RELATED CITY POLICIES The adopted 2001 TransPlan and 1998 Eugene Growth Management Policies provide the policy basis for mixed use (nodal) development. Eugene Growth Management Policy #10 states: "Encourage the creation of transportation-efficient land use patterns and implementation of nodal development concepts." Virtually all of the other adopted growth management policies, with the possible exception of#16, #17, and #19, are directly related to implementation of the mixed use development program. TransPlan Land Use Policies 1 through 5 also support implementation of the mixed use (nodal) development concept in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050720\S050720C.doc COUNCIL OPTIONS Staff is seeking clear City Council direction on the consistency of the Mixed Use (Nodal) Development Program with adopted City policy. If no clear direction is given, staff will continue to implement the program as provided in the Mixed Use Development Implementation Two-Year Work Program. The council may: 1. Confirm that the general direction of the program is consistent with adopted Growth Management Policies. 2. Direct staff and the Planning Commission to make specific changes to the program to insure conformance with adopted Growth Management Policies. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the council confirm that the general direction of the program is consistent with adopted Growth Management Policies. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to confirm that the general direction of the Mixed Use (Nodal) Development Program is consistent with adopted Growth Management Policies. ATTACHMENTS A. Memorandum: Mixed Use (Nodal) Development Program: Report on Conformance with Adopted City Policy B. Excerpt from TransPlan Land Use Measures (LUM) Strategies Document C. Excerpt from Eugene Local Street Plan: Planning Principles for Layout and Design of Local Streets D. City Council Adopted Growth Management Policies E. Excerpt from Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan: Relationship of ACSP to Adopted Plans and Policies F. Memorandum: Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area's Nodal Development Implementation Status Report - December 2003 (to the Land Conservation and Development Commission) G. Nodal Development Implementation - Mid-Project Review: Report and Recommendations of the Planning Commission to the City Council, April 8, 2003 H. Nodal Development Implementation: Two-Year Work Program (April, 2004) I. Program Brochures: I-1 Nodal Development in Eugene (2002); I-2 Mixed Use Development in Eugene: Frequently Asked Questions (2004); I-3 Mixed Use Development in Eugene: Design Principles for Livable Neighborhoods (2004) J. Program Maps: J-1 Potential Nodal Development Areas for the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area (2001) J-2 Potential Mixed Use Centers (for Eugene's Mixed Use Development Program) (2004) FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Allen Lowe Telephone: 682-5113 Staff E-Mail: allen.d.lowe~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050720\S050720C.doc ATTACHMENT A MIXED USE (NODAL) DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Report on Conformance with Adopted City Policy July 20, 2005 Introduction The Council has requested the July 20th work session to discuss the conformance of the mixed use (nodal) development program with city policies. The memo outlines the policy basis for mixed use development; summarizes the history of the program, especially those events that relate to policy discussions and direction from the Council; and attempts to answer questions and address issues raised by Councilors about consistency of the program with city policy. The history section, below, is included primarily as means of discussing the broad influence of the nodal development concept on all of our planning work but also shows how these ideas have retained their continuity while evolving over time. Brief History of the Eugene's Nodal Development Program The term "nodal development" has been used for more than 25 years in local plans. The first "Metro Plan" adopted in 1980 uses the term "floating node" to describe "an integrated medium-density residential and community-commercial scale development having good transportation access." Areas designated on early maps as "floating nodes" represent our earliest attempts to identify areas where the integration of transportation and land use planning would be pursued. Many of the land use, transportation and growth management concepts established during that era continue to guide City work a quarter of a century later and have provided the essential framework for the mixed use (nodal) development program that is in place today. Those early concepts resulted in the adoption of Metro Area General Plan policies, in 1980, that support and encourage: · A compact growth form; · Higher residential densities throughout the metro area; · An increase in the use of alternative modes of transportation; · Implementation of mixed use zoning; · Higher density residential development near employment and retail centers; · Medium and high-density residential development within one mile of downtown and within one-half mile of transit stations; · Development and redevelopment along existing and planned transit routes; · Infill development and redevelopment; and · A mixture of dwelling types and prices. Transportation Planning Rule (1991). The late 1980's and early 90's brought fundamental change to the way we think about the transportation and land use relationship. Redefining that relationship is the central feature of the mixed use (nodal) development concept. The State of Oregon was a national leader in rethinking that relationship and provided a framework for initiating fundamental change in the way that local governments conduct land use and transportation planning. In 1991 the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) which was intended to provide for a "... carefully planned transportation system designed to reduce reliance on the automobile and increase opportunities for the use of bicycles, transit and walking. " Among other requirements, the rule stated that "... within two years of adoption of this rule, affected cities and counties ,'hall, for urban areas of 25, 000 or more, adopt land use and subdivision ordinances or amendment; required... "by the rule. The City of Eugene was among the first jurisdictions in the state to comply with the TPR through the adoption of the Transportation Rule Implementation Project (TRIP) in 1993. The one-hundred-plus land use and subdivision ordinance changes identified and brought forward in the TRIP adoption process are now fully integrated in the Eugene Land Use Code. The TRIP process showed an energetic and early commitment by the Eugene City Council, Planning Commission, and Planning Division to rethink and revise Eugene's approach to transportation and land use planning. That commitment has strongly influenced the Planning Division's work program and the evolution of the mixed use development program over the past 10 years. TransPlan Update Initiated (1993). The TPR (along with corresponding federal legislation called ISTEA) provided mandates for change that resulted in the initiation of a major update to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan, known as TransPlan. The TransPlan Update occurred over an eight year period (1993 - 2001), culminating in the adoption of a new plan with a completely new policy foundation in the fall of 2001. The adoption of these new TransPlan policies are a central feature of the history of nodal development and are discussed in more detail in the "Policy Framework" section that follows this history summary. TransPlan Land Use Measures Task (LUM) Force (1994). The 24 member LUM Task Force, appointed by the Eugene and Springfield City Councils and Lane County Board of Commissioners, met between December 1993 and June 1994 to create, evaluate and refine a set of strategies and accompanying implementation techniques that came to be known as "nodal development". The Task Force was comprised of a cross-section of stakeholders and represented a wide variety of interests within the Eugene-Springfield area. At that time, nodal development, individually referred to as "nodes", was described as follows: "Nodes are mixed use development district; which include a core commercial area and are located within 1500 to 2000feet ora transit stop. Land uses within these areas can be mixed within a building or throughout the area. Mixed use buildings allow for a combination of uses within a single building or development complex. Typically, Nodes are no larger than 200 acres in size although larger nodes are possible in areas in which multiple transit routes intersect or abut the site. Nodes are adaptable to a variety of settings and site conditions, can occur 2 both inside and outside multi-modal corridors, but must at least be located along a planned or existing transit route." An excerpt from the TransPlan Land Use Measures (LUM) Strategies Document that describes "nodal development" and other related strategies is attached as Exhibit B. Eugene Local Street Plan (1996). The local street system is a critical component of the mixed use (nodal) development concept. Prior to adoption of the Eugene Local Street Plan (LSP), the City had no philosophy and very little policy for guiding the development of the local street system. The LSP established planning principles and design standards for local streets that reflect the City's intention to design multi-modal streets that emphasize features that improve comfort and safety for the pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users. To that end, the LSP introduced street connectivity requirements, traffic calming standards, restrictions on the number and length of cul-de-sac streets, design standards for transit facilities on local streets, standards for setback sidewalks with planting strips to be planted with canopy street trees, etc. Narrow streets with on-street parking that reduce traffic speeds are now common in new subdivisions throughout the city. An excerpt from the Eugene Local Street Plan that outlines the Planning Principles for the Layout and Design of Local Streets is attached as Exhibit C. Growth Management Policies (1998). In February 1998, the City Council adopted Growth Management Policies for the City of Eugene. Those Growth Management Policies, along with the adopted 2001 TransPlan, provide the policy basis for nodal (mixed use) development. The Growth Management Study, also known as Shaping Eugene's Future, initiated a sustained community conversation about Eugene's future and the actions that are necessary to realize that future. The study involved thousands of residents in setting the agenda for the study, and in advising the City Council and Planning Commission on broad policy direction and specific actions that should be taken to manage growth. In the final phase of the project, citizens were asked to evaluate four alternative growth management scenarios and sets of actions to implement those scenarios. The scenarios were labeled "Current Trends," "Discourage Growth," "Encourage Growth," and "Recycle Eugene". The "Recycle Eugene" scenario, and the actions that support that scenario, were selected by a clear majority of participants as the preferred description of how growth should occur in the future and how it should be managed. The Planning Commission used that scenario as the basis for developing the draft Growth Management Policies that were later adopted by the Council. The "Recycle Eugene" scenario was based on the mixed use (nodal) development concept. Most of the adopted Growth Management Policies that derived from this work are directly applicable to the City's mixed use development strategy. In essence, they provide a policy roadmap for implementing the program. Those policies are discussed in more detail in the "Policy Framework" section that follows this history summary. The adopted Growth Management Policies are attached as Exhibit D. Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan (1999) The Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan_(ACSP) along with the companion Eugene Local Street Plan (LSP) focuses on the continued development of a multi-modal street system for the City that accommodates all users of the transportation system and supports compact urban growth. Together, these two plans provide an essential set of tools to help the city implement key aspects of the transportation-related policies contained in the Eugene Growth Management Study and TransPlan. Those policies promote community livability by: · Maintaining and enhancing mobility for all modes of surface transportation including automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, transit vehicles, emergency responders and freight vehicles; · Seeking to create a transportation-efficient land use pattern; and · Achieving a better balance between all modes of transportation. An excerpt from the ACSP that describes the relationship of the ACSP to TransPlan and to the Growth Management Policies is attached as Exhibit E. Early Pilot Nodal Development Project (Specific Plans) (1998). Bolstered by community support for nodal development evident in the Growth Management Study, staff moved forward with plans to implement those policies in two distinct settings and areas of the City. As noted in the attached Nodal Development Implementation Status Report (Exhibit F) Eugene's process for identifying specific areas for nodal development proceeded in two stages. In April 1997 the City applied for State Transportation Growth Management (TGM) funds to assist with this process. Acknowledging the experimental nature of the work, the City applied for TGM funds to initiate two "pilot" projects to test a process and a set of planning tools to implement the nodal development concept on a newly developing "Greenfield" site and in a mature neighborhood where infill and redevelopment were the likely vehicles of change. The sites ultimately selected by the Planning Commission and confirmed by the Council, were West Royal (Newly Developing) and 11th and Chambers (Redevelopment/Infill). Those planning processes concluded in 1999 with the Planning Commission not recommending adoption of the Draft Chambers Nodal Development Plan and with the ultimate adoption, in 2003, of the Royal Avenue Specific Plan. Land Use Code Update (2000). Over a five year period beginning in 1995, the City was engaged in a lengthy process to overhaul and update Chapter 9 (Land Use) of the Eugene Code. Many fundamental elements of the mixed use (nodal) development program were addressed in that code update. New design standards were adopted for multi-family development, as well as for general and neighborhood commercial development. New lot development standards to allow higher residential densities and multi-modal street standards to improve conditions for alternative modes were incorporated in the code. Hundreds of changes were made to the code in the update. Many, but certainly not all of the changes were directed at implementing the nodal development concept. 4 MD Nodal Development Overlay Zone (2002). Stage two of the node identification process began in 2001 with City Council approval of its work plan for 2001-2002. Among the items on that work plan were the following: · Develop a funding, implementation and regulatory plan for nodal development; · Planning Commission recommendation on nodal development implementation; · City Council action on the plan, including selection of"priority nodes". The Priority Node site selection process is fully described on pages 5 through 8 of the status report memo (Exhibit F) As it became clear from the earlier "pilot projects" that site-specific planning for individual nodes would take far too long to accomplish within the mandated timeframes established in the TransPlan implementation schedule, the City, with the support of the State, developed the/ND Nodal Development Overlay Zone with the intent of applying it to the eight selected "high-priority nodes." This more aggressive approach resulted in the application of the/ND Nodal Development Overlay Zone to three of the eight priority nodes; the proposal to apply it to five other sites was suspended pending a review of the approach used to implement the node designation and zoning overlay in the selected areas. The suspension of the/ND Overlay zoning process was due to several failings. The zone itself was perceived to force a "one-size-fits-all" solution on the affected areas, all of which have unique characteristics that demanded customized solutions. The Planning Commission in its 2003 Annual Report to the City Council identified numerous problems with the implementation process in place at that time and with the specific/ND Overlay code provisions proposed for adoption. Issues identified by the commission include: · Lack of standards in the/ND Overlay zone to insure compatibility of new development with existing development; · The inability to achieve desired nodal development characteristics without being able to develop an overall plan for the entire area (specific area plans); · Lack of adequate notification of affected property owners; · Minimum floor-area-ratio requirements (1.0 FAR) in commercial zones; · Maximum setback provisions and limits on the location of residential parking areas in the residential zone requirements; · The effect of minimum density requirements for R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones on small infill lots; and · Recognition that the adjustment review process for the/ND Overlay zone was inadequate. The Planning Commission's report and recommendations to the City Council (Nodal Development Implementation - Mid-Project Review) is included as Exhibit G to this report. Nodal Development Implementation - Two Year Work Program (2004) Following the Council's decision (in May 2003) to suspend the application of the/ND Nodal Development Overlay zone to other "high-priority nodes" until identified problems had been fixed, and the joint meeting with the Planning Commission in July 2003, the Commission held a series of work sessions to discuss modifications to the overall program. Those discussions, held between November 2003 and June 2004, were wide ranging and covered many topics including: · Public perception of nodal development and marketing the idea so that the public better understands the concept; · The variability of conditions within each of the identified nodal development areas; · The differences in types of nodal development areas; · Public reactions to the names: "nodal development" and "node." · Housing and whether all nodes should be required to have housing within them and, if so, how would that be achieved in the "employment" nodes like Willow Creek and Riverfront Research Park. · Has the opportunity for development or redevelopment, consistent with nodal development principles, been lost in some areas? Should all of the "potential nodal development areas" identified on the TransPlan map remain on the map? · Should we have targeted tools for the different kinds of nodal development areas; i.e. infill and redevelopment sites or 'greenfield' sites? · The status of potential nodal development areas that were not designated as "high- priority" by the Council. Questions arose about how those areas should be ranked for attention and work or whether they should be ranked at all. · The necessity for specific plans for all areas. Do all nodes require a full-blown specific plan to address the problems that need to be remedied? Which nodes are more likely to need a specific planning process and which might not? · How should we address requests (from public and private interests) that new areas be planned for nodal development? · How will we know when we've accomplished nodal development objectives in any given area? Based on the Planning Commission's discussions and input from the public at those meetings, staff prepared a Draft Two Year Work Program for Nodal Development Implementation that presented a methodical approach to resolving the many issues raised in those meetings. The Draft Two Year Work Program was a primary topic of discussion at the 2004 Joint City Council Planning Commission Meeting held in October 2004. The Nodal Development Implementation Two Year Work Program is included here as Exhibit H. Policy Framework TransPlan Policies. It has been established that the policy basis for the nodal (mixed use) development program is contained in the adopted Growth Management Policies as well as the 2001 TransPlan. In a recent Council meeting where the policy consistency issue was raised, the concern was focused on Growth Management Policies, rather than TransPlan policies. Even so, a description of the five land use policies in TransPlan is necessary if one is to fully evaluate how the mixed use program is carrying out City policy. Those policies include the following: TransPlan Land Use Policy #1: Nodal Development. Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that have identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use pattern. Program Consistency with the Policy. The areas identified by the jurisdictions that adopted TransPlan (including the City of Eugene) as having potential for creation of a transportation-efficient land use pattern are shown on the TransPlan map entitled "Potential Nodal Development Areas for the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area". (See Exhibit J-I) Those same areas are shown on the map currently used for information about the mixed use (nodal) development program entitled "Potential Mixed Use Centers". (See Exhibit J-2) While the map title has changed to reflect the program name change enacted by the Eugene Planning Commission in 2004, the areas shown within the Eugene UGB are the same as those shown on the TransPlan map, with one exception. That exception is the Walnut Station area (labeled 1A on the Potential Mixed Use Centers map) that was added by the Council following the adoption of TransPlan. The shapes of some of the areas have also changed to reflect changes in the boundaries of these mixed use areas that were recommended by the Planning Commission and enacted by the Council. TransPlan Land Use Policy #2: Support for Nodal Development. Support application of the nodal development strategy in designated areas through information, technical assistance, or incentives. Program Consistency with the Policy. City staff has made considerable efforts to improve the information base for mixed use development over the past year and consistently offer technical assistance as needed. Incentives for the program are quite limited, however. · Incentives. Very few incentives are offered for the mixed use (nodal) development program. Those few that are offered are largely concentrated in the downtown area. · Brochures. The City applied for and received a grant from the Department of Land Conservation and Development to produce a series of brochures on various elements of the mixed use development program. While two brochures are still in production, the following brochures have been produced under the general title "Mixed Use Development in Eugene." © Frequently Asked Questions (See Exhibit 1-2) Design Principles for More Livable Neighborhoods (See Exhibit 1-3t © Infill and Redevelopment © Transportation Efficient Development © Higher-Density Housing Two other brochures have not yet been completed but are nearing completion: © Multi-Modal Street Design o Incentives for Mixed Use Development · Website. A Mixed Use Development website is a prominent feature of the Planning and Development internet site. All information pertaining to the program is placed on that site, including project-specific information on each of the City's mixed use development projects. · Presentations to Neighborhood and Civic Groups. City staff has contacted more than 40 neighborhood and civic groups seeking a time to meet with those groups to discuss the program. Since January staff has made 24 presentations to a variety of groups and has scheduled several others over the next two months. · Working Ci~. Video. A short video on the Mixed Use program was featured on the first Working City television show produced for public access television. That video was shown throughout the month of September 2004. · TechnicalAssistance. Technical assistance is primarily provided through the larger planning projects (like the Royal Avenue and Chase Gardens Specific Area plans) that are largely supported with Transportation Growth Management funds. Technical assistance has also been provided to several individual property owners who requested assistance with implementation of mixed use projects. · Workshops In 2003 the City sponsored a public workshop featuring several presentations by local and regional architects and developers on mixed use development implementation. TransPlan Land Use Policy #3: Transit-Supportive Land Use Patterns. Provide for transit-supportive land use patterns and development, including higher intensity, transit-oriented development along major transit corridors and near transit stations; medium and high-density residential development within ¼ mile of transit stations, major transit corridors, employment centers, and downtown areas; and development and redevelopment in designated areas that are or could be well served by existing or planned transit. Program Consistency with the Policy. The mixed use (nodal) development program is based on the provision of these transit-(and pedestrian) supportive features. All of the projects associated with this program are focused specifically on implementation of a transit- and pedestrian- supportive land use pattern that exhibits these features. (See program brochures Exhibit 1-2 and 1-3). From its inception, the nodal development program has been integrated with planning for transit facilities. A key feature of all mixed use (nodal) development areas is their location on an existing or planned transit line. As the ideas for Nodal Development and Bus Rapid Transit matured through the TransPlan process, these two concepts were completely integrated. Sixteen of the 39 potential mixed use areas within Eugene are located along potential Bus Rapid Transit Routes; the remainder are all on existing or planned transit lines. TransPlan Land Use Policy #4: Multi-Modal Improvements in New Development. Require improvements that encourage transit, bicycles, and pedestrians in new commercial, public, mixed use, and multi-modal residential development. Program Consistency with the Policy. To date, this policy has been implemented through a series of amendments to the Eugene Code (in 1993, 1996, 1998 and 2000) that require: · transit-oriented improvements in the greater downtown area; · bicycle parking and other facilities in new commercial and residential developments; · commercial developments to include design features that support pedestrian activities; · parking reduction incentives for individual enterprises that establish effective transportation demand management programs; · all developments of a certain size to include internal pedestrian circulation system; · Placement of transit connections (walkways) and other transit facilities in larger developments exhibiting certain characteristics. All of these on-site requirements are supported and reinforced with City efforts to create a multi-modal street system and through the application of new design standards that provide for all modes of transportation, including transit, bicycles and pedestrians. TransPlan Land Use Policy #5: Implementation of Nodal Development. Within three years of TransPlan adoption, apply the ND, Nodal Development designation to areas selected by each jurisdiction, adopt and apply measures to protect designated nodes from incompatible development and adopt a schedule for completion of nodal plans and implementing ordinances. Program Consistency with the Policy. This policy was addressed, primarily, through the/ND Nodal Development plan designation and overlay zone process described above. A thorough explanation of that process, as well as a detailed explanation of how the City has complied with TransPlan Alternative Plan Performance Measures is provided in the memorandum to the Land Conservation and Development Commission dated November 10, 2003. (See Exhibit F) Growth Management Policies: The 19 Growth Management Policies are intended to implement the vision statement embodied in the growth management scenario (Recycle Eugene) that was overwhelmingly endorsed by the citizens of Eugene. In the final policy adoption process, a "Vision for Managing Growth in Eugene" was generated as a way to synthesize and distill the meaning of "bundles" of policies that work together to achieve a desired outcome. Rather than listing individual GMS policies (which are included in the packet as Exhibit D), this section will use the "vision statement" as a way to simplify the discussion. Vision Statement on Land Use and Urban Form. "Population growth in Eugene will be accommodated through more efficient use of existing urban land. Expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary will be kept to a minimum. The City will encourage higher density in urban areas, provide for mixed land uses, and allow development of vacant land, while maintaining neighborhood character and integrity." Program consistency with Policies. This vision statement synthesizes growth management policies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Compact development is an organizing theme for Eugene's overall land use program; that theme is doubly emphasized in mixed use areas where small lot developments, multi-family developments and multi-story developments are encouraged. The program literature (Exhibits I-2 and I-3) explains that the "essential characteristics of mixed use development" include (among others): · "Mixed land uses that offer a variety of services, activities and destinations within easy, comfortable walking and biking distance of most homes;" and · "A mix of housing types and residential densities that achieve an overall density of at least 12 dwelling units per acre." The maintenance of neighborhood character is a central issue in the Chambers Reconsidered planning project being discussed by the Planning Commission. The Chambers project represents yet another approach at experimentation with a process and technique for addressing a specific problem in a target neighborhood. In this case, the reason for the Chambers project was to address the perceived incompatibility of new development with existing development. The City and area residents have proposed the adoption of new development standards that will improve the quality of new infill development for that area. In most mature neighborhoods, character and integrity of the neighborhood will continue to be a central concern of any future mixed use development proposal. Vision Statement on Housing. "The City will have a greater variety of housing types, and a greater selection of affordable housing. Housing design and aesthetics will improve." Program consistency with Policies. This vision statement synthesizes growth management policies 6, 7, 8 and 9. All of the City's previous mixed use planning projects (Royal, Chase, Downtown, Crescent and Chambers) have emphasized the provision of higher density housing in a variety of forms. The mixed use development codes created for these areas specifically encourage a variety of small lot single-family attached and detached structures, duplexes, tri-plexes, fourplexes, rowhouses, townhouses, and apartment dwellings. In some areas, alley dwellings are proposed and secondary dwellings are encouraged to broaden the selection of affordable housing. In each of the adopted plans, the mixed use development codes address housing design and improved aesthetics of all development, including residential development. 10 Vision Statement on Transportation: "Alternative modes of transportation (walking, bicycling, carpooling, and mass transit) will be encouraged. Congested areas will receive preference for street improvements." Program consistency with Policies. This vision statement synthesizes growth management policies 10, 11, 12 and 13. The adoption of the Eugene Local Street Plan and Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan provide the foundation for the construction and reconstruction of streets that will accommodate all modes of transportation. All of the mixed use development plans adopted to date include proposals for improvements to specific streets (like Garden Way, Royal Avenue and downtown's "Great Streets") that encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation. Vision Statement on Public Facilities and Infrastructure: "Streets, sidewalks, sewers, and public services will be paid for by those using them. Sharing of development costs will be offered for development that supports the growth management policies." Program consistency with Policies. This vision statement synthesizes growth management policies 14 and 15. Policy 14 refers to requirements that development will pay the full cost of extending infrastructure and services; this policy is not directly implemented through the Mixed Use (Nodal) Development Program but is affected by the SDC policies established by the Council. Policy 15 refers to targeting infrastructure to support "higher densities, in-fill, mixed uses, and nodal development". The Royal Avenue, Chase Gardens, Downtown Plan and draft Chambers plans all contained targeted infrastructure improvement projects that would support the mixed use concept. Vision Statement on Jobs and the Economy: "Efforts to diversify the local economy and provide family-wage jobs will focus on small, local and environmentally- sensitive businesses." Program consistency with Policies. This vision statement synthesizes growth management policy 16; that policy is not directly implemented through the mixed use development program but is more sensitive and responsive to the City's economic development policies and programs. Vision Statement on Environmental Quality: "The quality of Eugene's air, water and natural habitat will be protected and enhanced." Program consistency with Policies. This vision statement synthesizes growth management policy 17. This policy was fully implemented in the Royal Avenue Specific Plan that recommends the construction of multi-use drainage channels that protect existing habitat in the area. The drainage concept for the area, if implemented, will provide for improved water quality. For all areas in which mixed use plans have been completed, the physical layout of the area consistent 11 with mixed use principles, and provision of extensive bicycle, transit and pedestrian facilities will encourage use of alternative modes, helping to protect air quality. Vision Statement on Parks and Open Space: "The City will continue to acquire and develop parks and open space throughout the urban area." Program consistency with Policies. This vision statement synthesizes growth management policy 18. "Public spaces such as parks, public and private open space and public facilities that can be reached without driving" are among the other "essential characteristics of mixed use development" that must be included in mixed use (nodal) development areas. (See Exhibit I-2) The Royal Plan, for example, provided for the acquisition and development of two neighborhood parks totaling five acres, identifies approximately 15 acres of linear open space along multi-use drainage channels within which bike and walking trails are proposed for construction, and provides access to more than 400 acres of wetland area through collaboration with Public Works in the design of the Checkermallow Observation Area and extension of the Amazon bike trail. Vision Statement on Public Safety. "The City will take additional steps to reduce not only crime, but the fear of crime and the likelihood of crime, through community-based policing practices." Program consistency with Policies. This vision statement synthesizes growth management policy 19. That policy is not directly implemented through the mixed use development program but is more sensitive and responsive to the City's community policing policies. Other Council Concerns 1. A general issue raised by several Councilors is whether any element of the Nodal Development program was changed in any way when the name was changed from "Nodal"Development to "Mixed Use" Development. The change of the program name from "nodal development" to "mixed use development" was discussed at the October 14, 2000 joint annual meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council. No objections to the program name change were raised at that time and the discussion produced a general endorsement of the name change by the Mayor. No element of the "nodal development" program was changed when the name was changed to "mixed use development." The goals, objectives and intentions of the program are unchanged. The specific elements of the program and the "Essential Characteristics of a Node" are also unchanged. A comparison of the information brochures from 2001 (when the program was named "nodal 12 development") with the brochure produced in 2004 (after the name change to "mixed use development") reveals that both brochures contain the following text description of the essential characteristics of mixed use and nodal development: (See Exhibits I-1, 1-2, and 1-3) · "Design elements that result in pedestrian-friendly environments that support transit use, walking and bicycling, that promote a sense of community, and that improve livability; · A transit stop that is within walking distance (generally lA mile) of anywhere in the development; · Mixed land uses that offer a variety of services, activities and destinations within easy, comfortable walking and biking distance of most homes; · Public spaces, such as parks and open space, and other public facilities that can be reached without driving; and · A mix of housing types and residential densities that achieve an overall net density of at least 12 dwelling units per net acre." The description of design principles for both nodes and mixed use developments in the 2001 and 2004 brochures are the same. The physical aspects of the mixed use (nodal) development areas are all regulated by these design principles. As explained above, the areas identified as having potential for mixed use or nodal developments are the same today as they were in 2001 when TransPlan was adopted except that Walnut Station has been added to the Potential Mixed Use Centers map. (See Exhibits J-I and J-2) 2. Another issue was raised concerning whether the name "mixed use development" implied that the program was based on or was trying to replicate the "Downtown Westside Special Area Zone." No. The Downtown Westside Special Area Zone implements a type of mixed use zoning but has very particular objectives that it seeks to achieve. Those objectives include: · "Maintenance of the primary residential use and character of the area through rehabilitation of existing residential structures and additional high-density residential development as the primary land use in the area." · "Provision for existing office and small commercial uses as well as some limited additional office and small commercial development in the area, provided such uses are secondary to the primary residential land use in the area." · "Retention of major landscape features that enhance the character of the area." The objectives for the Mixed Use (Nodal) development program are much broader and more focused on achieving a transportation-efficient land use pattern than on retaining existing structures and landscape features in a particular neighborhood. To fully understand this difference, the Council may want to compare the language of Eugene Code section 9.3200 through 9.3221 that contains the requirements for the Downtown Westside Special Area Zone with those developed for a Mixed Use (Nodal) Development 13 Plan such as Royal Avenue. The development code for the Royal mixed use area can be viewed at EC 9.3800 through EC 9.3823. 3. Another issue that was raised concerned whether the conceptual diagram depicting nodal development that was used during the TransPlan Update process was still being used as a model for mixed use (nodal) development. The nodal development diagrams used during the TransPlan process were conceptual diagrams that were created by Peter Calthorpe, an architect and early proponent of planning for transit-oriented development. (See Exhibit B, pages 10, 11 and 12for examples of how that concept was adapted for local use). Calthorpe's work was used extensively in modeling the nodal development idea for the Eugene-Springfield metro area. Calthorpe's firm, Peter Calthorpe and Associates, was engaged to help evaluate the model and design standards that were created locally and to facilitate several public workshops to test the concept. The model and diagrams were used as the basis for developing and explaining the nodal development concept. The diagrams are very general and lack a level of specificity that limit their usefulness in the kind of site specific planning that we are currently engaged in. However, they will always be useful as a conceptual reference. 4. An issue raised by one Councilor at the October 20, 2004joint work session with the Planning Commission was that the Council had previously decided against having three types of nodes (neighborhood, commercial and employmenO. It is quite true that the Council voted to remove the terminology and detailed descriptions for "Neighborhood Centers", "Employment Centers", and "Commercial Centers" from the TransPlan map and policies before TransPlan was adopted. A reading of the minutes of those joint meetings with the Springfield Council and Board of Commissioners reveals some general and broad discomfort about the specificity of the definitions of those node types and concerns that they would be difficult to explain to the public. We must be clear that nothing was done subsequent to that decision that affects the inter-jurisdictional agreements reached in those meetings or the adopted policies for TransPlan. As far as the regional TransPlan is concerned, potential nodal development areas are all one type; i.e. generic nodes. (See Exhibit J-1 - TransPlan Potential Nodal Development Areas Map). The Planning Commission discussed the public understanding of nodal development at length after the Council halted the/ND Overlay process and directed the Commission to fix the program. It was generally understood by the Commission that the generic TransPlan Potential Nodes map was confusing to many city residents. The map reinforced the perception that the program really did take a "one size fits all" approach to nodal development planning. That was the message repeated over and over again in the 2003 public hearings on the eight "high priority" nodal development areas. 14 Staff and the Planning Commission emerged from the/ND Overlay zoning process impressed with the urgent need for a marketing plan for the nodal development program. Discussions with the Commission revealed a need for a public education campaign and approach to program marketing that was attractively presented, comprehensive and compelling. The generic nature of the TransPlan map was identified as a barrier to effective communication of the concept because it visually conveyed the message that there was only one type of node. The Planning Commission determined that it would be necessary to differentiate between the types of mixed use (nodal) development areas if we were to be successful in explaining the program to the public. For instance, the TransPlan map makes no distinction between the Downtown, Willow Creek Employment and Rasor Park Neighborhood nodes even though these areas are clearly very different from one another, each would require a completely different approach to planning for mixed use development, and the outcome for each area would likely be unique. The TransPlan map simply did not convey the right message. Accordingly, the Planning Commission made the decision to reapply the descriptive terminology (Neighborhood Center, Employment Center, Commercial Center) that allows us to explain the differences between different types of mixed use areas. That decision was brought forward to the Council at the October 20, 2004 work session. The Council did not provide direction at that meeting to stop using the descriptive terminology. The implications of this change are not yet decided, although public comments referring to the mixed use program being a "one size fits all" approach to planning have diminished considerably. 15 .... ATTACH~MENT B .B. NODAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS Definition: Nodal Developments (individually referred to as Nodes) are mixed use development districts which include a core commercial area and are located within 1500 to 2000 feet of a transit stop. Land uses within these areas can be mixed within a building or throughout the area. Mixed use buildings allow for a combination of uses within a single building or development complex. Typically, Nodes are no larger than 200 acres in size although larger nodes are possible in areas in which multiple transit routes intersect or abut the site. Nodes are adaptable to a variety of settings and site conditions, can occur both inside and outside Multi-modal corridors, but must at least be located along a planned or existing transit route. Lower intensity residential and employment areas usually surround the Nodes. These '!Secondary Areas" can take advantage of the services within Nodes through an interconnected street system and easy access to a local transit stop. This form of higher,density, mixed use development is know by many different names, each having a slightly different emphasis or theme. Examples of the concept include: "Urban Villages", "Suburban Centers", "Traditional Neighborhood Developments", and "Pedestrian .Pockets". These concepts have-been adopted or are proposed for use in several cities throughout the United States (see Ex.ample Applications). Description' Nodal Developments are designed to be transit, bicycle, and pedestrian supportive through the application of. seven planning and design principles which make up the key components of Nodal Development: land use mix, density, street patterns, pedestrian circulation, bicycle circulation, transit connections, and open space. Land Use Mix: A mixture of land uses is fundamental to the ·Nodal Development concept. The specific mix of uses within each area would vary, depending on its type and where it was located. The Nodal Development concept revolves around development of a cluster of mixed uses that. have their own identity; are compatible with one another, are functionally diverse, and are adjacent to or can be linked by transit .to a. major roadway. The mixing of uses is typically fine-grained and could include residential units above storefronts; small scale offices interspersed throughout the neighborhood; commercial services within office and other employment areas, and neighborhood commercial services, such as convenience stores, within residential neighborhoods. The most common form of mixed use development in Nodal Developments is the multi-story office building with retail space on the first floor. This simple example of mixed development has a long tradition of success, is considered marketable, and can' normally be financed. Other forms of mixed use development, such as ground floor retail shops with housing above, structures combining offices and hotels or hotels and private residential space, Land Use Measures Strategies Page 7 and low-rise retail facilities with offices above, could be more difficult to finance. Although there are numerous precedents for this kind of development, the concern of · the lending community in financing such projects is the difficulty that goes with having to take back such a building in the event of a foreclosure. There. are also real and perceived difficulties that result from operating two or more uses in a single structure. Residential Density: The goal of creating a balanced mix of uses within walking distance of each other necessitates a higher density than occurs in most outlying residential areas. Where housing is included in a area, medium and high density housing would be located closest to commercial services in the neighborhood center with single family houses located at the periphery. Higher densities could be achieved with a variety of housing types including detached single family homes On small lots, attached single family homes, townhouses, garden apartments, and multifamily developments. Higher densities are often dictated by the objective of locating uses within, one-quarter mile of .one another to achieve a walkable community. Minimum densities would be applied to all residential types within nodes. Most housing units would be located within a 5 to t0 minute walk of the neighborhood center2core commercial area, where commercial services and offices would be concentrated. Street Patterns: Street pattern is also important, to this strategy. The street pattern strives to provide an interconnected street network that give drivers alternate and direct rOutes to their.destination. The pattern discourages funneling all vehicles onto a few collector and arterial streets. This interconnected network is intended to reduce congestion on main roads by Providing local streets to local, destinations.' Auto use-is, facilitated for local triPs by connecting local streets with transit and local shopping destinations. Grid, modified grid, and CUrving streets are used in .combination, depending on the geographic features and development, plan for the area. Culrde~sac streets are avoided in favor of an interconnected street system that provides numerous possibilities for connections between travel destinations. Pedestrian Circulation: People can be expected to walk no'more than 1/4 mile to transit · ' . or commercial services. The closer b°th the beginning and end of a trip are .to a bus stop or station, the greater the' likelihood of people using transit for the trip. Nodal Developments are designed· for the benefit of the pedestrian. Appeal. to .the pedestrian is at the heart of street design, .structure design and site planning. To make the street more inviting, sidewalks are constructed on all streets throughout the node; streets widths 'are often reduced - especially .for residential streets; houses and other buildings are pushed closer to the curb to .create the perception of narrower, more pedestrian- friendly streets; and structures are built to a human scale. Street trees and other pedestrian amenities invite pedestrian use. On-street parallel parking is sometimes employed to give pedestrians a sense of protection from passing cars and to reduce the need for large-scale parking lots on development sites. In some plans, garages are placed at the rear of the'lot and are accessed'by long driveways or from alleys in the rear. This reduces the negative effect of garages on the streetscape and minimizes the Land Use Measures Strategies Page 8 number of curb cuts that cross sidewalks and present hazards to pedestrians. Bicycle Circulation: Integration of a high quality bicycle circulation system and bicycle amenities in the site planning for nodal development areas is' also important. Nodal develoPments will serve as centers of neighborhood actiVitY and will serve areas and uses that lie outside a convenient 1/4 mile walking distance.' The bicycle is a practical alternative to the automobile for certain kinds of trips, but the needs of the bicyclist must be recognized and planned for to stimulate increased use. The safety of the bicyclist in designing the system should be paramount. Trip distances for bicyclists should be made as short and direct as possible. Adequate and secure bicycle parking throughout the nodal area is also important. On-street bike lanes, bike routes and off- street bike paths shoUld be incorporated into the nodal area site planning at the earlieSt possible stages to ensure an efficient, practical and safe system. Transit Connections: While land use and development patterns within Nodes are designed to enhance walking orbicycle trips as viable travel options, Nodes are connected to ' each Other and to other areas via Multi-modal corridors or transit routes and the arterial street system. Where nodes are created in undeveloped areas or areas currently lacking transit service, connections to the transit system must be provided. Transit stops or a transit center should be located near areas with the highest residential and employment denSities;, ideally these would be within or-near the-center of the neighborhood and within 1/4 mile of all uses within the neighborhood. Open Spaces: This is a .critical element in areas with residential development and .in areas with concentrations of pedestrians, bicycle riders, and transit users. Open space is typically treated mOre formally within Nodal Developments than in other types of development, such as Planned Unit Developments or subdivisions. Rather than preservation of large blocks of open space or greenbelts, open space is defined by "village squares and greens", formally designed parks, and small but intensively used recreation areas. Where possible, Nodes might be sited adjacent to larger community-scale parks, natural areas or.greenbelts; but neighborhood-scale open. spaces are smaller and more characteristically urban. These open space features are often used to frame and complement adjacent intensive development. Types of Nodal Developments Categories of Nodal Development Areas can be established to recognize distinctions in the function, intensity of activity, and scale of development appropriate in different areas. Categories to be considered for the Eugene-Springfield metro area, given the scale and development context of the area, include: Mixed Use Centers, Employment Centers, Neighborhood Centers, Neighborhood Infill, Connected Pedestrian Nodes, Linear Nodes, and "Main Streets". Land Use Measures Strategies Page 9 Mixed Use Centers These areas are the most intensively developed Nodes, and could be developed as concentrated nodes of intensive office development, commercial, and higher density residential uses. Mixed Use Centers are always located on existing or Planned Multi-modal corridors. This designation could be applied to major regional employment sites. Their mixed use nature, inCluding community-serving (ground floor) retail and moderate to high-density housing, could foster an active pedestrian environment, allOwing workers full opportunity to take care of errands during lunch time, without needing a car. Mixed Use Centers will reinforce rather than displace existing downtown areas by providing for nodes of concentrated employment and retail activities. These Centers can evolve from existing developed areas in which infill, redevelopment and re-use of underdeveloped properties will be key strategies, or can be applied to emerging employment, shopping and high-density housing districts.. I I i ! I ..z, I .__. i ' I I .i ! .... -i Mixed Use Center concept. Land Use Measures Strategies Page 10 Employment Centers This designation could apply to areas with concentrations of light industrial, office and institutional uses that are not of regional significance. Transit service could be more effectively provided to these areas if a limited amount of convenience services were provided on-site within walking distance so employees could run errands on foot during the work day. I The preferred location would be along Multi-modal corridors but Employment Centers could function, less effectively, along transit routes. I I · I ! Employment Center concept. Land Use Measures Strategies Page 11 ~eighborhood Centers This designation could be applied to sites designated for future housing to influence the design and mix of uses within a neighborhood. Neighborhood Centers are envisioned as primarily residential with services available within walking distance and opportunities for limited employment activity. Housing would be clustered around a neighborhood commercial center, containing neighborhood-serving businesses. Small-scale office uses would be interspersed within the residential development. The retail center and transit stop are the neighborhood focus of the Node. All uses would be integrated with a well-designed pedestrian and bicycle circulation system and interconnecting streets. Neighborhood Centers must be located along either a planned or existing Multi-modal corridor or transit route. Multi-modal corridor locations will permit' higher density developments. Neighborhood Center concept. Land Use Measures Strategies . Page 12 Neighborhood Centers can be developed in new growth areas or on redevelopment or infill sites. Providing.a mix of housing, shopping, and public uses within walking distance of transit and neighborhood commercial services are primary requirements of neighb.orhood center nodes, but lower density housing is appropriate in neighborhood centers as long as average density within the node meets transit service minimum density thresholds. Neighborhood centers can provide for affordable housing through efficient land use and by encouraging a variety of housing types to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse population. Neighborhood Infill This designation applies to existing low density neighborhoods which have potential for nodal development through slight increases in residential densities, redevelopment and more efficient land use, while minimizing changes to the existing character, of the area. The Neighborhood. Infill designation would promote pedestrian, bicycle and transit activity by either establishing or reinforcing small-scale, neighborhood commercial "anchors" within these low-density residential areas. These areas must be located along a planned or existing Multi-modal corridor or transit route. The focus within Neighborhood Infill areas is on promoting pedestrian, bicycle and transit activity by either establishing, or retrofitting small-scale neighborhood commercial centers within existing low density residential areas, and enhancing the bicycle and pedestrian circulation systems. Connected Pedestrian Nodes Connected Pedestrian Nodes (CPNs) are a nodal development type with several distinct characteristics that distinguish them from other nodal 'development types. Key components of the Nodal Development strategy (mixture of land uses, residential densities, pedestrian circulation,, bicycle circulation, transit connections and open space) are similar in almost all respects to the components of a CPN. However; CPNs differ in several important respects. The most important distinction is that Connected Pedestrian Nodes would be designed and developed to encourage gradual removal of automobiles for everyday access to uses within the node. The gradual removal of automobiles would .depend on development of an alternative transportation system and infrastructure that would make auto-free neighborhoods, a practical alternative. Vehicular access would be maintained for emergency vehicles, service vehicles, wheelchairs and the like. CPNs would be developed in clusters to promote the necessary densities and mixture of activities that would allow each node to support the others. The centers of all CPNs would be cOnnected to other nodes with an efficient multi-modal transportation system, emphasizing bicycle, pedestrian and urban rail modes. Access to automobiles, for those who live and work Land Use Measures Strategies Page 13 in the nodes, would be maintained through the development of special parking areas on the periphery of the CPN. Another important distinction relates to street pattern and design. Because automobile access and use would be discouraged in CPN' s, new streets would not be designed for unlimited · access by automobile users but would, instead, be designed as walking, transit or trolley streets. Development of a highly integrated and interconnected street network is very important to the CPN concept to insure unlimited access to all areas by pedestrians. Another design factor that distinguishes the CPN from other Nodal Developments relates to pedestrian circulation. Because streets would not be designed for automobile use, the introduction of on- street parking as a pedestrian-safety and land use efficiency measure would not be necessary. Linear Node. A Linear Node designation would apply as a redevelopment strategy to appropriate existing strip commercial areas and to other areas where this type of development would be desirable. Linear nodes are concentrated areas of mixed commercial and residential land uses along a street; the small-scale and fine-grained mixture of uses primarily serves the surrounding neighborhood areas. A Linear. Node is characterized by a concentrated, small-scale mixture of retail, service, professional and residential uses located along a street that forms the "spine" of the Linear Node. This central street could be a secondary "off" street that par.allels a larger commercial street, or it could be the main commercial street of an area. Linear Nodes are located along either a Multi-Modal Corridor or a transit route, and they are compatible with and could occur within a Node. Single-family and/or multi-family residential areas surround the. Linear Node. There is mixed commercial and residential development both within the area and within individual buildings. Building design would allow newer buildings to be compatible with, and achieve the same character as older structures, where desirable. Street design, building orientation and amenities enhance transit, bicycle and pedestrian activity. Transit, automobile, bicycle and pedestrian routes connect the Linear Node to the surrounding area. Pooled,. off-street parking is limited and its placement is carefully planned. This environment provides for ease of movement and safety, both along and across the street, and from the adjacent neighborhoods. "Main Street." - The "Main Street" concept .is a type of Linear Node, and can also be used as a redevelopment strategy option for creating or enhancing mixed use, community-oriented areas. Land Use Measures Strategies Page 14 from the turn of the century and into the 1920's and 1930's, these types of areas the primary commercial areas within a community. "Main street" areas were located along a major transportation corridor and were served by streetcar or trolley lines. Buildings fronting these streets were generally multi-storied but were in scale with the adjacent single- family residential neighborhoods. Residential uses along "main streets" were often second story walk-ups rather than stand-alone apartment buildings. Retail and service uses tended to serve the immediate neighborhood rather than a regional market. Although a "main street" was a mixed use area, the defining characteristic was not a specific use, but the scale and design of those uses, and the relationship of the structures and activities to the surrounding neighborhood and to the street. "Main streets", as used in the TransPlan update, are located along a Multi-modal Corridor or transit route and are characterized by a concentrated, small-scale mixture of retail, service, professional and residential uses located alonga street that forms the "spine" of the node. · As with Linear Nodes, the street could be a secondary "off" street that parallels a larger commercial street, or it could be the main commercial street of an area. Ideally, a "main street" would be bisected by a two lane street; alleyways would function as the main service and parking access routes for the businesses and residences. "Main streets" can be adapted to fit a variety of settings. Single-family and/or multi-family residential areas surround the "main street" Node. Buildings are developed close to the street (reduced building setbacks), and the two- or three- story development along the street is in scale with adjacent residential neighborhoods. There is mixed commercial and residential development both within the area and within individual buildings. Building design would allow newer buildings to be compatible with, and achieve the same character as, older structures, where desirable. Additional sidewalk widths accommodate pedestrian activity. Transit, bicycle and pedestrian routes connect the Linear Node to the surrounding area. The placement of bicycle parking facilities and transit stops are 'designed to provide easy access and minimize bicycle, pedestrian and automobile conflicts. Pooled, off-street parking is limited and its placement is carefully planned. Building orientation and entrances focus on the front sidewalk. Pedestrian-oriented sign placement, landscaping, benches, pedestrian-scale lighting, drinking fountains, and other design features enhance the pedestrian environment~, and encourage a high level of pedestrian activity. This environment provides for ease of movement and safety, both along and across the street, and from the adjacent neighborhoods. The street design limits the street width and speed of traffic, and includes on-street parking, bulb-outs and clearly delineated crosswalks. Land Use Measures Strategies Page 15 Secondary Areas Nodal Developments may be surrounded by a "secondary area" which provides for uses which are not appropriate in Nodes because they .are lower density or are auto-oriented. These areas 'may include an area up to one mile from the core commercial area within a node. Secondary Areas may have lower density single-family housing, public schools, large community parks, low intensity employment-generating uses, and park and ride lots within them. Very low intensity industrial and warehousing uses which are highly auto and truck-dependent are not appropriate for Secondary Areas; they do not have a sufficient number of employees to contribute to a healthy pedestrian environment or to substantially affect transit ridership rates. The Secondary Area must provide multiple direct street, pedestrian and bicycle connections to the transit stop and core commercial area with a minimum of arterial street crossings. Relationship to Metro Plan Objectives for Compact Urban Growth Higher density residential and higher intensity employment development within nodes will help achieve Metro Plan objectives for compact urban growth. A slight increase in density and intensity of development within nodes allows the region's projected population and employment growth over the next twenty to thirty years to be accommodated within the · existing urban growth boundary. Concentrating development opportunities in nodes allows for' protection of existing lower density residential neighborhoods, preservation of open space and significant environmental resources while maintaining the existing urban growth boundary. Desirable Linkages: Multi-modal Corridors (LUM) Strategy Implementation Techniques (LUM) Trip Reduction Ordinance (TDM) Employee Financial Incentives (TDM) Parking Management Strategies (TDM) Park & Ride Lots (TDM) Ridesharing/Marketing Programs (TDM) Pedestrian/Bicycle Policy (TDM) Work Schedule Changes (TDM) Light Rail (TSI) Bikeway Improvements/Expansion (TSI) Commercial Vehicle Management (TSI) HOV Lanes and Exclusive Busways (TSI) Pedestrian Improvements (TSI) Traffic Signalization (TSI) Transit Improvements (TSI) Transit Service Management (TSI) Land Use Measures Strategies Page 16 ~xample Applications: LARGER DEVELOPMENTS: Laguna West, (Sacramento County, California) Kentlands (Gaithersburg, Maryland) Harbortown (Tennessee) Seaside (Resort oriented community, Florida) Mashpee Commons (Mashpee, Massachusetts) Riverplace, Portland, Oregon (hotel, residences, office space, retail space, marina, athletic facility and public open space). MIXED USE BUILDINGS: Pioneer Place, Portland, Oregon (office and retail space) George Apartments, Portland, Oregon (ground floor retail, upper floors housing) University Center, Eugene, Oregon (ground and 2nd floor retail, upper floor office) Tiffany Building, Eugene, Oregon (ground floor retail, upper floor housing) Lincoln Terrace Apartments, Eugene, Oregon (retail and housing) LINEAR NODES / "MAIN STREETS": Hollywood District, Portland Northwest Portland (21st Avenue; 23rd Avenue) Belmont Neighborhood, Portland Hawthorne Shopping District, Portland Fifth Street / Market District, Eugene Main street / Depot District, Springfield The Southtowne Shoppes & surrounding businesses, Eugene (Oak Street between 28th and 29th Avenues) Land Use Measures Strategies Page 17 ATTACHMENT C SECTION H. PLANNING PRINCIPLES FOR LAYOUT & DESIGN OF LOCAL STREETS Currently, the complete network of local streets is planned incrementally through the review and approval of individual subdivisions or planned unit developments. City staff must make decisions on the location and design of future streets with each request for approval of a new subdivision or planned unit development. Typically, these decisions must be made without a comprehensive understanding of how those streets will connect with other future streets or how they should connect with the existing street system. This approach leaves city staff, developers and local residents unsure about how the completed local street system in any given area will work. The following planning principles were used in the development of the Eugene Local Street Plan and are the foundation for recommended code and standards changes. The principles are also intended to guide City of Eugene staff in making street planning decisions when reviewing development proposals. Discussion of these principles and recommendations for their implementation are included in Sections HI through VI of this report. The order in which the planning principles are listed are not intended to imply an order of importance. 1. Local streets help determine the form and character of neighborhoods; street design should be considered a part of neighborhood design. 2. Local streets should be designed to carry low traffic volumes at low speeds and to function safely while minimizing the need for extensive traffic regulations, control devices, and enforcement. A successful design will result in traffic calming and reduce the need for future installation of traffic calming measures. 3. The function of the local street should be readily apparent to the user through its appearance and design in order to reduce non-local through traffic on local residential streets. 4. Local streets should be interconnected to reduce travel distance, promote the use of alternative modes, provide for efficient provision of utilities and emergency services, and provide for more even dispersal of traffic. 5. The layout of a local street system should not create excessive travel lengths. 6. The local street circulation pattern should provide connections to and from activity centers such as schools, commercial areas, parks, employment centers, and other major attractors. 7. Local circulation systems and land development patterns should not detract from the efficiency of adjacent collector or arterial streets which are designed to accommodate heavy traffic. ~'UG£N£ LOCAL STRE~ET PLAN 5 8. Local streets identified as future transit routes should be designed to safely and efficiently accommodate transit vehicles, thus encouraging the use of public transit as a transportation mode. 9. Local streets should be designed to meet the needs of pedestrians and cyclists, thus encouraging walking and bicycling as transportation modes. 10. Local street design should be responsive to topography and should avoid or minimize impacts to natural features, water-related resources, and wildlife corridors. 11. The pavement area of local streets should be minimized, consistent with efforts to reduce street construction and maintenance costs, stormwater runoff, and environmental impacts of street construction. Narrower streets also distinguish local residential streets from collector and arterial streets and enhance neighborhood character. 12. Where appropriate, the local street system and its infrastructure should be utilized as an opportunity to convey and treat stormwater runoff. 13. Large scale, high-canopy street trees should be planted on local streets to create attractive and healthy neighborhood environments. Damage to street trees resulting from utility line placement and repair, and from new home construction, should be minimized. 14. The range of local street types should be broad enough to allow flexibility for residential developers, resulting in lower site development and street construction costs and discouraging the construction of private streets. 15. Local street layout should permit and encourage efficient lot layout and attainment of planned densities. 16. Local streets should be designed to efficiently and safely accommodate emergency fire and medical service vehicles. Sources consulted in development of these principles include Residential Streets, published in 1991 by the American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Homebuilders, and the Urban Land Institute; Performance Streets: A Report on Supplemental Street Standards for Residential Neighbor- hoods in Houston prepared in 1994 by Peter H. Brown Civic Design; Performance Streets: A Concept and Model Standards for Residential Streets, prepared by the Bucks County, Pennsylvania Planning Commission (1980); and the City of Boulder, Colorado Residential Access Program materials (1994). 6 EUGENE lOCAL STREET PI. Al4 ~ : ATTACHMENT D Adopted Growth Management Policies RESOLUTION NO. 4554 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES; AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 3867. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. In the fall of 1995, the City Council adopted a work program and scope of work for a growth management study. The Planning Commission conducted an initial set of citizen workshops and a survey in December 1995. Based on that community input, the Planning Commission and two members of the council appointed as liaisons to the Planning Commission for the study picked eight topic areas to study in depth. B. In June 1996, the City held a community open house at the Fairgrounds to provide the community with background information on eight topic areas, existing policy direction and programs supporting each policy area and issues and possible directions for future. Also during the summer of 1996, the Planning Commission and council liaisons developed four scenarios to describe alternative growth management directions the community could follow: (1) encourage growth; (2) maintain current trends; (3) discourage growth; and (4) recycle Eugene. C. In November and December 1996, the four scenarios were discussed in community workshops, tabloid responses, and surveys. The results showed community support for policy direction in the "recycle Eugene" scenario. D. In the spring of 1997, the Planning Commission and council liaisons prepared a set of recommendations on growth management policies based on the community input. In July 1997, the City Council held a public hearing on those recommendations. The Council then held several work sessions in November and December 1997 to review and revise the policies. On December 10, 1997, the Council tentatively approved 19 policies to be used to direct the work of the City Manager and staff in developing proposed actions for Council consideration and approval. Those actions include amendments to the Eugene Code, 1971, such as the land use code update, and other work program and budget priorities. E. Based on that tentative approval, Resolution No. 3867, which adopted the 1984 Eugene Community Goals and Policies on September 10, 1984, should be repealed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows: Section 1. Based on the above findings and the findings set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, the Council adopts the following Growth Management Policies: 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. Policy 4 Improve the appearance of buildings and landscapes. Policy 5 Work cooperatively with Metro area partners (Springfield and Lane County) and other nearby cities to avoid urban sprawl and preserve the rural character in areas outside the urban growth boundaries. Policy 6 Increase density of new housing development while maintaining the character and livability of individual neighborhoods. Policy 7 Provide for a greater variety of housing types. Policy 8 Promote construction of affordable housing. Policy 9 Mitigate the impacts of new and/or higher densitY housing, in-fill, and redevelopment on neighborhoods through design standards, open space and housing maintenance programs, and continuing historic preservation and neighborhood planning programs. Policy 10 Encourage the creation of transportation-efficient land use patterns and implementation of nodal development concepts. Policy 11 Increase the use of alternative modes of transportation by improving the capacity, design, safety, and convenience of the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation systems. Policy 12 Encourage alternatives to the use of single-occupant vehicles through demand management techniques. Policy 13 Focus future street improvements on relieving pressure on the City's most congested roadways and intersections to maintain an acceptable level of mobility for all modes of transportation. Policy 14 Development shall be required to pay the full cost of extending infrastructure and services, except that the City will examine ways to subsidize the costs of providing infrastructure or offer other incentives that support higher-density, in-fill, mixed-use, and redevelopment. Policy 15 Target publicly-financed infrastructure extensions to support development for higher densities, in-fill, mixed uses, and nodal development. Policy 16 Focus efforts to diversify the local economy and provide family-wage jobs principally by supportinglocal, and environmentally-sensitive businesses. Direct available financial and regulatory incentives to support these efforts. Policy 17 Protect and improve air and water quality and protect natural areas of good habitat value through a variety of means such as better enforcement of existing regulations, new or revised regulations, or other practices. Policy 18 Increase the amount and variety of parks and open spaces. Policy 19 Expand City efforts to achieve community-based policing. Section 2. The policies adopted by Section 1 shall be used by the City to guide the work of the City Manager and staff in formulating for Council consideration proposed changes to the Eugene Code, 1971, including potential changes to Chapters 2 through 9. The policies adopted by Section 1 also shall be used by the City to guide other work programs, including such actions as preparation of the budget and revisions to the capital improvement program. Section 3. The policies adopted by Section 1 shall not be used in determining whether the City shall approve or deny individual land use applications. Instead, the policies will be implemented through the Council's actions in amending the Eugene Code, 1971, and in actions other than code changes such as adopting the City budget and capital improvement program. Section 4. Resolution No. 3867, and the 1984 Eugene Community Goals and Policies adopted therein, is repealed. The foregoing Resolution adopted the 2nd day of February, 1998. /s/Warren Wong, City Recorder This page last updated November 20, 2000 ATTACHMENTE~ Relationship of ACSP to Adopted Plans and Policies Relat, ion~hip ~,o Tran~Plan Rela'r, ion~hip 'r,o ¢,he Cen'r, ral Area The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transpor- Tran~por~a~,ion 5'r,u~l~, mi tation Plan (TransPlan)is the metropolitan area's The original Central Area Transportation Study long-range transportation plan. TransPlan was (CATS) was completed in 1987 and focused on traffic adopted in 1986 and contains projects and policies flow, parking supply and air quality. An update was to guide the development of the region's freeway, published in 1993 which included the City Council's arterial, and significant collector street systems. It strong emphasis on the need to increase the use of also addresses the principle modes of transportation alternative modes of transportation. The 1993 CATS ~i used within the region including automobiles, buses, update proposed policies (which were ultimately bicycles and walking. The policies contained in adopted by the City Council), suggested strategies to TransPlan are fairly general in nature, and, along implement policy, and identified future projects with the TransPlan projects, are designed to support deemed necessary to maintain or improve the · the adopted land use patterns and goals of the Metro operation of the transportation system. 'Plan, to help reduce automobile demand, and to increase the use of alternative transportation modes. CATS is a policy and strategy document that directs [] the City of Eugene to increase the use of alternative TransPlan is a multi-jurisdictional document affect- modes of transportation, and to improve central ing Lane County, Lane Transit District, and the cities Eugene streets and parking facilities. It was not of Eugene and Springfield. The Arterial and Collec- designed to discourage or inhibit the use of the tor Street Plan (ACSP), on the other hand, is spe- automobile on City streets, but rather to integrate cific to the City of Eugene and will not be adopted the use and share the public right-of-way with by other agencies. transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. ~11 TransPlan is currently being updated, with public The CATS boundaries are roughly aligned with review and adoption of the plan occurring during Lincoln Street on the west, 19th Avenue on the south, · 1999/2000. The Arterial and Collector Street Plan Walnut Street on the east, and the Willamette River must be consistent with the existing adopted to EWEB on the north, then westerly along 4th and 5th TransPlan because that plan will be in effect until Avenue back to Lincoln Street. (See Figure 2) the updated TransPlan is adopted. At the same time, the ACSP should also be consistent with the pro- posed policy direction of the updated TransPlan. As indicated by the goals and objectives discussed earlier, the ACSP focuses on developing a transpor- tation system that balances mobility and access needs, provides for integration of land use and transportation systems, and provides for choices in modes of travel. Those goals and objectives are consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of both the current and updated versions of TransPlan. The ACSP document contributes to the ongoing process of improving Eugene's transportation system. It is considered a refinement of TransPlan and contains a street classification map and design standards for arterial and collector streets that will guide the imple- ! mentation of policies and projects in TransPlan. ! Most of the strategies and many of the implementa- serviced transit stop. Nodal developments are i tion actions set forth in the CATS study have been intended to support the use of alternative modes of implemented, including the following: transportation. The street system that serves the node, and development within the node, must stimulate · The Transportation Rule Implementation and support pedestrian, transit, and bicycle use. I Project (TRIP); The ACSP does not directly implement the nodal · a downtown shuttle feasibility study con- development concept. However, it does contain I ducted by Lane Transit District; classifications and design standards for streets that · a sidewalk priority study and sidewalk infill will abut, or, in some cases, intersect future nodal project which has resulted in the construction of development sites. Future nodes are invariably i many missing segments of sidewalk; located on streets that are classified as either major or minor arterials. Arterial streets are, typically, · several street design standards documents pre- primary transit routes. pared by Eugene Public Works Department, and I The document contains Transit Facility Design Guide- - numerous specific street improvement projects lines and Standards that provide guidance for develop- in the CATS area. ment of transit facilities on major streets. Those I Proposals in the Arterial and Collector Street Plan standards address bus stop locations, turning radius would result in some minor changes to the func- requirements, turnout requirements, transit amenity tional classification of several street segments within requirements, and bus stop and shelter design stan- i the CATS area. However, no new projects are dards. These standards and guidelines would be proposed or anticipated. The design standards applied within nodal development areas unless more proposed by this draft Plan could be applied to specific requirements are developed as part Of a future future street improvements within the CATS bound- nodal development implementation process. I aries. (Those standards have been revised to reflect Consideration for maximizing the use of alternative the special characteristics and constraints of central modes on all major streets, including those abutting city streets.) Street improvements within the CATS or within nodal development areas, is addressed in I area would still be governed by the adopted CATS the discussion of Policy 1 1, below. document; any other changes to CATS-area streets beyond minor operational and safety projects I would require an amendment to that document. GM,~ ?olicy 11 Increaee the uee of alt~rnat,ive rnodee of t~anepor- Rela~ionehiF 'r,o ~he Eugene Grow'r,h t,at,io. !~ improving t,he capa~it,y, deeion, eafgt,y, and Ma nagemen~ S~udy t,mnepo~,ation eyel~me. Growth Management Study policies have been The Arterial and Collector Street Plan is not a I adopted by the Eugene City Council. Among those document it is document. The project a policy policies are four that are specific to the transporta- capacity of the street system is addressed in docu- - tion system, ments like the TransPlan Update that identify I specific projects to maintain or enhance capacity ~M~ ?oIJGy 10 throughout the system. General design, safety, and convenience factors are addressed in the Arterial i En~our~ge t,he ~eat,ion of a t,r~nepo~at,ion-effi~ient, and Collector Street Plan document but the specific land uee pat,t,em and implement, at, ion o~ nodal design treatment of any project must be considered development, ~onceFrr, e. at the project level. I Nodal development is based on a concept of higher- Alternative mode use is in encouraged, a general density, mixed-use development centered around a commercial core that is adjacent to a frequently sense, by insuring that: ! · Streets that are appropriate for direct, higher- It is not the purpose of this document to address the speed bicycle travel have bicycle lanes included application of Transportation Demand Management in the design; (TDM) techniques. In staff's view, the Arterial and Collector Street Plan is not the appropriate venue · Standards for bicycle design elements promote for discussion of TDM approaches. The Planning safe and efficient use of the bicycle (bicycle lane widths, etc.); Commission has concurred with this view. While the document does not directly address stop· Transitlocations,facilitYbusdesignturnoutfactOrSrequirements,including bUSbus TDM, neither does it conflict with the application of TDM techniques in the community following the shelter design, turning radius requirements, and adoption of TransPlan TDM policies. Further, design transit amenities are addressed (Design Stan- of multi-modal streets will complement future dards and Guidelines for. Transit Facilities); efforts to implement more effective TDM measures. · Pedestrian travel is made safer and more For example, employer-based efforts to encourage comfortable by: more bicycling or transit trips to work sites will be more successful where safe bikeways, sidewalks a) specifying setback sidewalks in the design and bus routes have been provided. of city streets; b) creating standards for median pedestrian GM,.~ ?oJic;y 'J:~ refuges; Foou~ ~l;ure ~l;reel; imFrovement;~ on relievin0 c) including adequate minimum sidewalk pr~sure on t, he Cit,~,'~ moet, ~onoe~t. ed roadwa~,~ widths; and and inl;er~ecrr, ion~ to maintain an a~eFI;able level of d) requiring pedestrian-friendly design of mobili'r,~. ~:or all mode~ o'ft, ran~l~ort, at, ion. curb returns (corners at intersections), ramps, The policy points to the need to maintain mobility on and pedestrian crossing features, major streets (arterials and collectors) Addressing the balance between mobility and access is one of five e) minimizing the number and length of street classification criteria proposed in the ACSP. driveways cutting across sidewalks. Purpose statements and design standards proposed GM,~ F'oli~y 12 for major streets are based, in part, on recognition that effective implementation of alternative modes EM~oura~j~ alt, ernat, ive~ t,o t,h~ u~e o~ ~ingle-o~oupant, programs, especially transit system programs, vehi~l~ t, hrouoh demand manao~m~n¢, t, echnique~, depends on maintaining mobility on those streets. "Demand management" techniques are intended to The Arterial and Collector Street Plan continues the change travel behavior in order to improve perfor- direction established in the Local Street Plan. That mance of transportation facilities and to reduce the direction emphasizes maintaining a higher degree need for additional road capacity. Examples of of mobility on major streets than on local streets. demand management methods include: · expanding the use of flex-time, and of bus pass Relat, ion~hiF, t,o t, he Ri0ht,-of-Way Map and ridesharing programs, When the City adopts transportation plans, includ- · implementing transportation pricing strategies, lng specific proposals for improving certain major streets, staff also estimate the needs for additional · increasing parking fees, right-of-way generated by those proposed projects · establishing maximum allotments for parking, -- in other words, the amount of width that is likely to be needed to accommodate the roadway itself · lowering minimum parking requirements, and plus the other street components including side- walks and planting areas. Chapter 9 of the City ·provision of transit shuttle service for large events. ~4 ! Code includes a table of required street widths for Applicabilit, y Of i various types of streets, and specific right-of-way requirements for arterial and collector streets are designated on an adopted right-of-way map. Some of the roads and streets within the Eugene I In 1993, the City council adopted a new Street urban growth boundary are under the jurisdiction of Right-of-Way Map and updated code revisions, to Lane County or the State of Oregon. The street reflect the anticipated needs for street right-of-way classification, right-of-way, and design standards i based on the adopted TransPlan and other official included in this Arterial and Collector Street Plan transportation plans and policies. The Street Right- are intended to apply to City of Eugene streets and of-Way map is used to determine setbacks for roadways, and they have limited applicability to development along designated streets, as well as State or County roads, as follows: I additional right-of-way to be acquired by the city or · Street classifications and right-of-way needs dedicated by property owners when they develop are intended to be in agreement with those I their property adjacent to certain streets, adopted by Lane County and the State of Or- This Arterial and Collector Street Plan includes egon. In case of any difference between the design, standards that will affect the right-of-way classification or right-of-way needs shown on i needs on some streets. The Appendix to this docu- the maps in the ACSP and those adopted by ment contains a list of major streets for which right- other agencies, the agency with jurisdiction over of-way requirements would change. The changes to a particular road will havethe final authority. i the code and Street Right-of-Way Map will be · The design standards and guidelines included adopted along with final adoption of the Arterial in the ACSP are to be considered advisory only and Collector Street Plan. rather than mandatory in their application to improvements on any County I or State road. · i ° The role of the City in I reviewing proposed develop- ment, access, or improve- ments on County and State I roads is governed by separate intergovernmental agree- ments. Adoption of the Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan is not intended to alter any such agreement. I I Available s~reet; rioht,-of-way help~ =let, e~'rnine how ~he e~reet~ is ~leeione~l an~l u~e~l  ATTACHMENT F Planning & Development Planning City of Eugene 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 682-5443 (541) 682-5572 FAX Date: November 10, 2003 To: Chair Franke and Land Conservation and Development Commissioners From: Susan Muir, Planning Director Subject: Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area's Nodal Development Implementation Status Report - December 2003 In May, 2001, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) approved the Eugene- Springfield Alternative Plan and Performance Measures contained in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan). The measures were developed as one part of the region's strategy to implement an integrated approach to land use and transportation planning and to replace state-mandated Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reduction targets intended to reduce reliance on the automobile. The LCDC Order approving the alternative measures (Commission Order 01-LCDC-024), dated May 8, 2001 contains four recommendations for local action. Those recommendations are as follows: 1. LCOG should amend TransPlan to include a schedule for implementation of the nodal development strategy. 2. Eugene and Springfield need to specify areas for nodal development within one year. 3. Eugene and Springfield need to adopt Metro Plan designations and zoning amendments for the specified nodes within two years after TransPlan adoption. 4. Eugene, Springfield and Lane County need to review plan amendments and zone changes outside nodes to assure that they are consistent with the nodal development strategy. Eugene has provided specific area plans, zoning, or Metro Plan designations for nodal development covering 892 acres, including the Downtown Eugene central business district. This represents 90% of the 2005 target acreage for the entire Eugene-Springfield metropolitan region. We are pleased to report we have made significant progress towards achieving the goals in the Transportation Planning Rule and our alternative strategy. We appreciate all of the resources you and your staff have put into assisting us with this matter. We look forward to the December 2003 briefing so we can discuss the progress we have made towards completing the tasks within the Order. Our goal in December is to send a clear message to the Commission that the City of Eugene is committed to the nodal development concept. This commitment is clearly emphasized by the Planning Commission and City Council efforts outlined in this memo. As part of our commitment, we are already addressing some of the issues that have made implementation of the nodal development concept 1 difficult. As part of our adaptive management, we are constantly adjusting and reevaluating our program to make sure we have the right tools, and the appropriate measures in place to move this program forward. To facilitate these efforts, the City would like to propose to the Land Conservation and Development Commission that the City staff, along with your staff, continue to work collaboratively on this process and explore the following questions: 1. Are the timelines in the original order appropriate or do they need revision? 2. Do we have the ability to measure success with a different yardstick than what was in the original order, or in addition to what was in the original order without jeopardizing the integrity of the program? 3. Can we work together to secure state funding that supports local needs to implement the nodal development program? Again, we appreciate the time and effort the Commission has put towards this effort. We continue to work towards consensus with our elected and appointed officials and communities to meet the intent of the Transportation Planning Rule and Commission Order and we appreciate the acknowledgment by the state that this is a worthwhile, innovative effort, although difficult at times. We look forward to the opportunity to the discussion with you and your Department. Status of Compliance with Commission Order 01-LCDC-024 Order Recommendation #1: Schedule for Implementation Recommendation #1 was completed with the incorporation, into TransPlan, of the following implementation schedule. Only tasks 1 and 2 of the table below are addressed in this memo. Table 1 Nodal Development Implementation and Integrated Land Use Transportation Plan Development Schedule Task Agency Responsible Schedule 1. Specify specific areas for nodal Eugene, Springfield May 2002 development within one year 2. Adopt Metro Plan designations and Eugene, Springfield, September 2003 zoning amendments for the selected sites within two years after TransPlan adoption. 3. Review plan amendments and zone Eugene, Springfield, As plan amendments and changes outside nodes to assure that Lane County concurrent zone changes they are consistent with the nodal are submitted development strategy 4. Changes to land use plan Eugene, Springfield September, 2004 designations, densities, and design standards listed in TPR Section 0035 (2)(a)-(d). (If needed, in addition to work done through 2. Above) 5. Policies to review and manage Eugene, Springfield, September, 2004 major roadway improvements to Lane County ensure that their effects are consistent with achieving the adopted strategy for reduced reliance on the automobile. 6. Plan and ordinance provisions that Eugene, Springfield, September, 2004 meet all other applicable requirements Lane County of this division. 3 Order Recommendation #2: Identify Specific Areas for Nodal Development The Nodal Development implementation schedule directs local jurisdictions to "specify areas for nodal development within one year" after adoption of TransPlan. The target date for completion of the task was May, 2002 even though TransPlan was not adopted until December, 2001. Site Selection for Pilot Project Areas Eugene's process for identifying specific areas for nodal development proceeded in two stages. The first stage began well before TransPlan was adopted. In April 1997, the City applied for a TGM grant to assist with this process. The grant funded a demonstration of transportation-efficient land use planning focusing on the preparation and adoption of a concept design, strategies and ordinances for two potential nodal development sites identified in TransPlan. The project was intended to serve as a "pilot project" to test a process and set of planning tools to implement the nodal development concept. The grant agreement required the City to select one node in a redevelopment/infill setting, and one node in a "newly developing" (undeveloped) area. Notice of the grant award was received by the City in July, 1998 allowing less than one year for the selection of the sites and development of specific area plans for both sites. The process for selection of the two sites employed the Eugene Planning Commission as a recommending body with the final decision resting with the City Council. City staff proposed a set of criteria for each site to guide the site selection process. The site selection criteria for the Newly Developing Area were as follows: 2. Site is included on the Draft TransPlan Proposed Nodal Development map. 3. Significant amounts of vacant or under-developed land remain. 4. The site is located on an existing or planned transit route. 5. Pressures for development are increasing. 6. Number of property owners within the nodal development area. 7. Proportion of land in larger parcels. The criteria for the Infill/Redevelopment Area were modified as necessary to reflect the developed character of these sites: 1. Site is included on the Draft TransPlan Proposed Nodal Development map. 2. The site contains a significant amount of land with medium-to-high redevelopment potential and/or a significant amount of land with infill potential. 3. The site is located on proposed Phase I Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route. 4. Number of property owners within the nodal development area. 5. Provides sufficient complexity so that a range of issues will be addressed, but not be too complex for the project timeline and budget. An interagency staff technical group evaluated five candidate sites and recommended two of those sites to the Planning Commission for the pilot studies. The sites ultimately selected by the Planning Commission, and confirmed by the Council, were West Royal (Newly Developing) and 11th and Chambers (Redevelopment/Infill). The specific area planning process for those two sites is further described in the section addressing Order Recommendation #3, below. 4 Site Selection for Priority Nodes Stage two of the node identification process began in 2001 with City Council approval of its work plan for 2001-2002. Among the items on that work plan were the following: · Develop a funding, implementation and regulatory plan for nodal development · Planning Commission recommendation (on nodal development implementation), and · City council action on plan, including selection of priority nodes. The first step in that process was the selection of the "highest priority nodal development areas". The second step in the process (application of nodal development designations and zoning) is further discussed in the section addressing Order Recommendation #3, below. In October, 2001 the Eugene Planning Commission began the process to select at least 10 potential high- priority nodal development areas with the intention of forwarding a recommendation to the City Council for final selection of eight areas for the application of the/ND Nodal Development Metro Plan designation and the Eugene/ND Nodal Development overlay zone. The eight areas were in addition to the Royal and Chase Gardens areas where detailed nodal development plans and zoning regulations were adopted separately AND the Downtown and South Bank nodal development areas where updated plans and zoning regulations will be adopted separately as part of the Downtown Plan Update. Throughout October, 2001 the Planning Commission held work sessions to review background material on potential nodal development areas within the Eugene urban growth boundary and to review and approve criteria for selection of high-priority nodal development areas. Prior to beginning the work sessions, the commission asked staff to provide the following information on each of the 39 potential nodal development areas within Eugene's UGB: · Whether there is a proposed Bus Rapid Transit corridor through or adjacent to the node; · Distance from downtown Eugene; · Existing population and employment within the area; · Existing Metro Plan designations; · Existing zoning; and · Existing land use Staff also prepared a set of draft site selection criteria for the work sessions; the Planning Commission revised those draft criteria during the site selection process resulting in the following criteria for selection of the eight high-priority nodal development areas. 1. Bus Rapid Transit corridor through or adjacent to the node. 2. Within three miles of downtown (measured from the intersection of Broadway and Willamette); for areas beyond three miles of downtown, minimum 20% undeveloped/vacant land. 3. Mixture of existing residential and non-residential/mixed-use zoning; minimum of 20% residential zoning. 4. Proximity to existing parks, open space or protected natural areas or opportunity to establish within the area. 5. For all nodes selected, distribution of geographic locations and types throughout the city. 6. In the short-term, opportunities for development or redevelopment consistent with the nodal development concept. 7. In the short-term, potential for incompatible development or redevelopment that would reduce the long- term opportunities for nodal development. 5 Using the set of geographic and demographic information, the draft criteria, and comments received from the public, the Planning Commission forwarded a preliminary list of eleven potential nodal development areas for further evaluation. The preliminary selection process included extensive discussion about appropriate boundaries for each node; ultimately a tentative boundary was selected for each node. That boundary was subsequently used as the basis for property owner notification of the Metro Plan Diagram amendment and overlay zoning application process. Among the eleven areas initially selected was a new area (Walnut Street Station) that was not included on the TransPlan map of potential nodal development areas but emerged as a potential site as part of the Phase I Bus Rapid Transit planning and design process. In a November, 2001 work session with the City Council, the Council suggested that two additional areas be added to the list for evaluation, bringing the total preliminary list of sites to thirteen. In January, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a second open house and public comment session. Following the open house, on January 20 the Planning Commission recommended eight high-priority nodal development areas to the City Council. On February 20, the Council received the Planning Commission recommendations and approved the eight areas recommended by the Planning Commission for initiation of a process to apply the/ND Metro Plan Diagram designation and/ND Nodal Development Overlay Zone. The following areas were selected by the City Council as high-priority nodal development areas. 1. Royal at Danebo 5. 29th and Willamette 2. Lower River Road 6. West 11th at Chambers 3. Crescent / Coburg 7. West 18th/Churchill 4. Gilbert 8. Walnut Street Station The selected high-priority nodes and other nodal development areas in which specific node-related planning has occurred are shown in Figure 1. Proposed Nodal Development Areas 7 Order Recommendation #3: Adopt Metro Plan Designations and Zoning Amendments for Specified Nodes On May 4, 2001 LCDC approved a set of Alternative TPR Performance Measures as a means of gauging progress on implementation of the alternative measures. TransPlan contains the following performance measures for nodal development-related activities. Table 2 Alternative TPR Performance Measures for the Eugene-Springfield MPO Measure Key Plan Plan 1995 2005 2010 2015 Element Implementation or Travel/Market Response Acres of Nodal Plan 1,000 1,500 2,000 acres Zoned Nodal Development Implementation acres acres zoned for Development nodal development % of Nodal Market Response 2.5% 14.5% 23.3% of dwelling Development New DU's units built in 5.6% 20.4% nodes % of New Nodal Market Response 10% 25% 45% "Total" Development Employment 18.1% 32.6% in Nodes It should be noted that the first benchmark year for reporting progress on implementation is 2005. At that time, it is expected that a total of 1000 acres will be designated and zoned for nodal development throughout the metropolitan area. As of this date (November, 2003) the City of Eugene has re-designated and re-zoned nearly 680 acres of land for nodal development with an additional 212 acres expected to be re-designated by March, 2004 in conjunction with the adoption of the Downtown Plan. By mid-2004, Eugene will have the appropriate Metro Plan designations and zoning to implement nodal development on almost 900 acres of land, or 90% of the 2005 target acreage for the region. Table 3 provides a summary of the status of recently approved, or active nodal development projects in Eugene. Table 3 City of Eugene Summary of Current Nodal Development Activities October, 2003 Node Total Vacant Status Final Acres Acres Boundary * Established Royal 191 160 Royal Avenue Specific Plan adopted; yes Avenue /ND Metro Plan designation adopted; special development code adopted Chase 129 41 Chase Gardens Specific Plan adopted; yes Gardens /ND Metro Plan designation adopted; special development code adopted Royal at 149 81 /ND Metro Plan designation adopted/ yes Danebo /ND Overlay Zone adopted Lower River 72 12 /ND Metro Plan designation adopted/ yes Road /ND Overlay Zone adopted Crescent / 138 55 /ND Metro Plan designation adopted/ yes Coburg /ND Overlay Zone adopted. Gilbert 66 6 Final action suspended pending Tentative amendments to/ND Overlay Zone 29th and 106 2 Final action suspended pending Tentative Willamette amendments to/ND Overlay Zone W. 11 th at 81 3 Final action suspended pending Tentative Chambers amendments to/ND Overlay Zone W. 18th / 61 8 Final action suspended pending Tentative Churchill amendments to/ND Overlay Zone Walnut 45 Final action suspended pending Yes, but not Street amendments to/ND Overlay Zone yet adopted Station Downtown / 212 5 Draft Downtown Plan complete; public Yes, but not Sonthbank hearings in progress. Adoption yet adopted expected March, 2004. Eugene Total 1262 378 * This chart provides basic data without representation of pending land use applications or redevelopment potential 9 /ND Nodal Development Overlay Zone It became clear from the pilot projects that site-specific planning for individual nodes would take far too 10ng to accomplish within the time frame established in the TransPlan schedule. To implement TransPlan's nodal development strategy in a timely fashion, the City of Eugene combined requirements from the Transportation Planning Rule, the City's downtown Transit Oriented Development Zone, and lessons learned from the two pilot projects to create a single zoning district that could be applied more efficiently and uniformly to many nodal development areas. The resultant/ND Nodal Development Overlay Zone (Eugene Code 9.4250, adopted 2002) serves several purposes. First, it protects identified potential nodal development areas from incompatible, 'non-nodal' development. Second, the overlay zone directs and encourages development that supports nodal development concepts in appropriate areas. The/ND overlay provides land use and design standards so that it may be used as the sole implementing land use regulation for all or part of a nodal development area. The zone was structured to be effective on both vacant and redevelopable lands. The/ND Overlay achieves compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule through the following land use regulations supporting pedestrian friendly, mixed-use development within the node: Prohibits low intensity, land extensive uses, such as automobile sales and service, recreational vehicle rentals, parking lots not related to a specific business or residences, and drive-through facilities. · Limits retail buildings to less than 50,000 square feet on the ground floor. · Requires minimum floor-to-area ratios (FAR) of 1.0 in most areas zoned for commercial and office uses. · Requires a minimum FAR of .4 in areas zoned for industrial uses. · Establishes higher minimum densities in residentially zoned areas (8 du/net acre for R-1 Single Family Residential and R 1.5 Rownhouse zones; 15 du/net acre in R-2 Medium Density Residential zone; 25 du/net acre in R-3 Limited High-Density Residential zone; and 30 du/net acre in R-4 High-Density Residential zone)., · Imposes the/TD Transit Oriented Development zone standards that apply in the downtown core area to the nodes. These affect building placement, access, and prohibit parking between the building and the street. As discussed in a later section of this memorandum, this 'one-size fits-all' approach raised very real concerns among residents and businesses in many of the city's priority node sites - often with different concerns being raised in each node, because of each area's unique historic development pattern. Application of Nodal Development Designations and Zonine As mentioned above, planning for specific nodal development areas has occurred in two cycles. The first cycle occurred between 1998 and 2000 and involved development of specific area plans for two "pilot projects" that served as a proving- ground for testing new approaches to land use, transportation and infrastructure planning; citizen- involvement, and for redefining the role of the public sector in development planning and approval. The second cycle occurred between 2001 and 2003 and involved the creation of a specific area plan for one additional node (Chase Gardens) and development and application of the/ND Nodal Development Metro Plan designation and/ND Nodal Development Overlay zone to the eight selected priority nodes. 10 The early pilot projects were really the City of Eugene 's first opportunity to work on shifting the planning paradigm for our City and introduce the concepts of nodal development. Royal Node The Royal Node Specific Area Plan involved the development of a master plan, application of the/ND Nodal Development Metro Plan Designation, and approval of a special development code for the 191 acre site. The plan was adopted in January, 2003 and took four years to complete. 11th and Chambers The 120 acre "Chambers Node" was an established neighborhood, with adjoining strip commercial area, that was studied with TGM grant funding to identify improvements that would help make the area more pedestrian friendly, have better neighborhood services in the commercial areas, and encourage transition of an industrial area into a mixed-use area that would be more compatible with nearby residences. For a variety of reasons, the recommendations from the pilot study were never adopted by the City, but discussions continue to this day with area residents about methods to implement the concepts raised in the study. Chase Node In 1999, the City applied for and received TGM grant funding for nodal development planning in the Chase Gardens area in east-central Eugene. The Chase Gardens Nodal Development Plan involved the development of a master plan and nodal development designation for a 170 acre area and approval of special development codes for the approximately 52 acres within this area. The draft plan was completed in June 2001. The Nodal designation and zoning were adopted in November 2002. The process to apply the/ND Metro Plan Designation and/ND Overlay zone to the eight high-priority nodes has been extremely challenging. Three of the priority nodes have been designated/ND Nodal development in the Metro Plan and have had the/ND Overlay zone applied to them. The process is complete for those nodes. The City was awarded a grant from the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) program for the 2001-2003 biennium to cover a portion of the staff costs for the Metro Plan amendment / rezoning project. The subject nodes and the dates of adoption of the node designation and zoning overlay is as follows: · Royal at Danebo DesignatiOn and overlay zone approved by the City of Eugene on January 13, 2003 and by Lane County on January 15, 2003. · Lower River Road Designation and overlay zone approved by the City of Eugene on May 12, 2003 and by Lane County on May 14, 2003. · Crescent / Coburg Designation and overlay zone approved by the City of Eugene on February 24, 2003 and by Lane County on February 26, 2003. Final action on the 5 remaining high-priority nodes has been suspended pending a review of the approach used to implement the node designation and zoning overlay in the selected areas. Those areas include: · Gilbert · 29th and Willamette · West 11th at Chambers · West 18t~/Churchill · Walnut Street Station 11 A description of the issues associated with each node and the procedural status of each node is contained in the following section of this memorandum. 12 Status of Eugene's Selected Nodal Development Sites Royal Avenue Development and adoption of the Royal Avenue Specific Plan was a challenging and lengthy process. The 191 acre site lies at the western edge of the city in an area that is rapidly developing. It was seen at the time of its initiation, and continues to be seen today, as a model for redefining how nodal development can occur in a suburban context. This planning effort, financed in pan by a TGM grant, involved: · an extensive citizen involvement effort - including a design charrette process that extended over three days; · an inventory and analysis of existing site conditions; · an analysis of the study area's relationship to surrounding areas and nearby activity centers; · a technical analysis of the effects of development on public services, public facilities and environmental resources in the study area; a feasibility analysis for providing public services and facilities to the site; and · an analysis of the existing transportation system in the area. Following selection of a "preferred alternative" for development of the site; another analysis was conducted on the impacts of the preferred alternative on public services, public facilities and environmental resources on the site which resulted in an "Infrastructure Implementation Report" for the site. Other repons completed in this process included a Market Analysis and Incentives investigation and numerous interim repons on the preferred alternative and various aspects of the nodal development concept. While it was known from the outset that there were wetlands in the area, little was known about their specific locations or values. Initial investigations resulted in an intensive effort to map and understand wetlands and other natural resources on the site. The City conducted (and financed ) a wetland delineation for the site which revealed the presence of more than 60 acres of wetlands in the study area - almost 1/3 of the site. This factor, more than any other, dominated the planning and adoption process from that point on and resulted in a two to two-and 1/2 year delay in adopting the plan while jurisdictional wetland issues were resolved. The resolution of those wetland issues required collaboration with the US Corps of Engineers in financing and conducting a Special Area Management Plan for Wetlands in the Royal Node. This planning process, which integrated wetland and natural resource planning considerations with nodal development planning considerations, resulted in agreement among City, State and Federal authorities on an approach to wetland protection and mitigation. This approach is built right into the adopted site plan and in the standards, adopted by the City, for the design of the node's stormwater, parks and open space systems. 13 The Royal Avenue Specific Plan will guide the development of nearly 1100 dwelling units at an average density of 12 du/net acre (more than double that of surrounding development), 8 acres of mixed-use, neighborhood scale commercial development, nearly 40 acres of parks and open space (approximately 20% of the total site area); a planned location for a transit center and transit routing to serve future development; a highly-interconnected, multi-modal street system designed to reduce local traffic speeds; and the construction of sanitary sewer, electric and water system, and stormwater drainage system improvements as development occurs. Adoption of the plan included concurrent adoption of the/ND Nodal Development Metro Plan designation and adoption of special development codes that will apply to new development within the Royal Avenue planning area. Since the plan's adoption in January, 2003, no development has occurred in the area. Royal Node Metro Plan Diagram Amendments I ND Nodal Development Designation 14 Chase Gardens The Chase Gardens plan was an attempt to study and implement nodal development principles on the last vacant properties within one of the City's largest pockets of high density development outside of its downtown. The area's 1992 refinement plan provided for more high density residential development and very limited neighborhood commercial services, but the commercial services were to be separated from the residential areas by Garden Way, a major collector street that is scheduled for improvement. The study area boasted several properties on the National Register of Historic Places, other properties eligible for listing, bike paths through bucolic orchard remnants, natural resources, and excellent transit service. Not all of the study area was incorporated to the City of Eugene, so Lane County approval was required. The study involved area residents and property owners in many discussions about how to best accommodate growth, create a viable neighborhood commercial center, increase pedestrian and transit use, and preserve important natural and historic features. Several economic factors swiftly became the focus of discussions and provided the framework for the land use plan that was eventually adopted. Among the factors considered were the following: The area was greatly under-served by commercial services; the node could accommodate a 9-12 acre commercial center so that residents from an area greater than the node could also avoid longer trips for basic services. If the size of the major commercial tenant, presumed to be a grocery, was restricted too much, the result would likely be a specialty store that was not affordable to the many students who populate Chase Gardens. Specialty stores may attract customers from a larger region, thereby exacerbating traffic congestion and increasing vehicle miles traveled. · To be viable, the commercial center must be relocated to increase visibility and access from Centennial Boulevard (now Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd) as well as Garden Way. · Properties located against 1-5 (but without direct access) that were previously designated for commercial development would be equally or better marketed for high density residential or mixed use development. · Residents of the historic properties did not want Garden Way street improvements, new assessments, or any intensification of traffic that the proposed development would bring. · It was too expensive and disruptive to natural resources and public park land to relocate Garden Way to a more central location or to create a more rectangular grid pattern of streets. · DLCD strongly recommended an outright prohibition of drive-through facilities throughout the node, citing OAR 660-012- 0060(7)(H), which says low intensity or land intensive uses should be "limited or prohibited." During the study, a major property holder and prospective commercial developer participated in refining the market analysis and site design so that, in the end, the draft nodal development plan met the nodal development objectives set out at the beginning of the process. TGM grant funding, and the consultant support it provided the City, expired with completion of the draft plan in June 2001. City staff drafted land use code that would implement the draft plan in a simplified fashion, Metro and refinement plan amendments, and plans were made to install the infrastructure improvements necessary to support the node. Before the plans were adopted in November 2002, the Planning Commission, City Council, and County Board of Commissioners had to wrestle with the competing images of a small "neighborhood village" that had previously been used to describe nodes --~ i.e., 'mom & pop' stores with small apartments upstairs lined along a quiet street --- and the large commercial needs, high traffic volumes, and market realities in the Chase Gardens area. In the end, the general land use pattern proposed in the draft plan was approved, and the following restrictions were added (to many others) to create the necessary neighborhood village atmosphere and pedestrian comfort: 15 1. Drive-through lanes and facilities are prohibited outright. 2. Each tenant in a building facing a key pedestrian street has to have a door facing the street (parking has to be located to the side or behind the building, not between the building and that street). 3. Each building facing a key pedestrian street has to provide a second story that was functional and leasable. As the City understands the situation, because of these three regulations, the interested commercial developer abandoned the project and property owners have not been able to sell their properties. Adoption of the Chase Node plan involved a Metro Plan Diagram amendment, changes to the Willakenzie Area (refinement) Plan diagram and text, and amendments to the City'sland use code and zoning map. The City will proceed with improvements to Garden Way in the spring of 2004. 16 Chase Gardens Nodal Development Area I- 105 17 Royal at Danebo The Danebo node totals 149 acres and includes 234 lots. The node is bisected by a minor arterial street (Royal Avenue), an established route for local transit service. More than half of the land (81 acres) is currently undeveloped, a substantial portion of which is designated for residential development (approximately 45 acres of low-density and 22 acres of medium-density). The owner of the 45 acre low-density parcel expressed concerns about the ability to meet the 8 unit/acre requirement in the /ND overlay zone. The owner proceeded to submit a subdivision application prior to the adoption of the overlay zone, thereby vesting their project under the original code requirements. That subdivision will result in approximately 6.8 units per acre. Although this density is not that far below the overlay zone requirement, the developer indicated that this difference would have a significant impact on the type of housing which could be built. To the south of Royal a 10 acre site within the node is developed with a shopping center constructed the year before the redesignation and rezoning process was initiated. There was minimal comment from the commercial property owners regarding the Nodal Overlay zone FAR provisions and restrictions on drive- thru-uses, given the unlikely need for near-term redevelopment or new construction. The primary area remaining in this node is the 22 acres of medium density land owned by the City of Eugene. At this stage, the City is establishing 3 acres as a land bank site for affordable housing. We expect that this site will yield at least 20 units per acre. A separate 16 acre site will be auctioned off by the City soon; this site will be developed at densities of at least 15 du/net acre, in accordance with the minimum density provisions of the/ND Overlay zone. The remaining area contains existing single-family homes built in the 1960ts and 1970's with limited area available for infill. 18 Danebo Nodal Development Area Lower River Road The node consists of 73 acres, 6 of which are located outside of the city limits. Key factors for including the Lower River Road site as a high-priority nodal development site included: · the existing mix of uses in the area the amount of vacant land (10.7 acres, representing about 15% of the total land area) · frequent transit service on River Road, and · support from River Road community residents. The dominant use is Parks and Open Space. Rasor Park and a portion of Maurie Jacobs Park, both City- owned parks and totaling about 30 acres, are within the node. Other uses/designations include two pockets of Medium Density Residential housing, and low density residential uses which are generally concentrated along the southern half of the node. The majority of the vacant land is designate for medium-density residential development. Commercial uses are concentrated in two areas along River road. The larger area includes restaurants, vehicle repair shops, and motorcycle sales. The smaller commercial area consists of several automobile-related uses. Testimony from area residents, the River Road neighborhood group and the Whiteaker Community Council was overwhelmingly in support of the node. Surprisingly, no testimony was received from commercial land owners or interests. Many of the existing commercial uses are prohibited in the/ND overlay zone and can not now expand their existing businesses. 20 Lower River Road Nodal Development Area Lower River F~oad Nodal Development Area ~ [ Unincorporated Area 2! Crescent/Coburg The Crescent Node includes about 138 acres of land and 87 tax lots. It is located east of Coburg Road, north and south of Crescent Avenue. The area includes land designated in the Metro Plan for residential, commercial and industrial uses. The node contains properties that are currently outside the city limits, including the Kinney Loop area and properties north of Kinney Loop. The area was selected partially due to the large amount of vacant land. At the time the node was identified, a total of 99 acres were vacant, or about 72%. The remaining developed property include Kinney Loop area (primarily single- family homes), Crescent Park PUD (200 unit apartment complex), Crescent Ventures (three office buildings zoned Campus Industrial), Summer Oaks Crescent Center (partially developed with a branch bank and small neighborhood shops), and Crescent Medical Offices (clinic and delicatessen). In March 2002, the Eugene City Council initiated the process to amend the Metro Plan designation to apply the Nodal Development designation to the entire Crescent Avenue Node and to apply the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone to the portion of the area within the Eugene City limits. In December 2002, the Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions held a joint public heating on the proposed amendments and forwarded recommendations. The Eugene Planning Commission expressed concern over the lack of a specific plan for this node such as those being developed for the Chase Gardens and Royal Avenue nodes. However, commissioners supported the proposed amendments as an interim step. The Eugene Planning Commission voted 5:0 to, "recommend that the City Council adopt the amendments to the Metro Plan diagram and concurrent automatic amendment to the Willakenzie Area Plan land use diagram to depict the Crescent area as a nodal development area, with strong reservations that this and all future nodes require a currently unscheduled nodal planning process to make the goals of nodal development attainable and to make this development compatible with adjacent properties." The commission voted in an identical fashion for the amendment concerning the/ND overlay zone. The Lane County Planning Commission voted 5:1 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny the amendments. The Lane County Planning Commission's primary concerns included the lack of detailed planning for the area and the inability to change the underlying Metro Plan designations and zoning through this process. Concern was expressed about the potential incompatibility of new high density residential development on the vacant 38-acre development owned by Arlie & Company and the existing low density residential areas to the east and west of the property. On January 22, 2003, the Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners held a joint public hearing on ordinances to implement nodal development in the Crescent Avenue area. The ordinances included amendments to the Metro Plan land use diagram, with concurrent automatic amendment to the Willakenzie Area Plan diagram, for the entire area and amendments to the Eugene Overlay Zone map for the unincorporated area. These ordinances were adopted by the Eugene City Council (2/24/03) and the Lane County Board of Commissioners (2/26/03). During the process of making minor revisions to the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone, the City Council approved streamlining the application of the overlay upon annexation of property designated Nodal Development in the Metro Plan. In May 2003, Arlie & Company submitted a set of plan and zoning map amendments designed to provide the policy and regulatory framework for a "high-density residential, pedestrian friendly, mixed use, transit- oriented development" on a 39 acre vacant development site within the Crescent Node. On June 12, 2003, the City deemed the applications complete for processing. On June 23, 2003, the Eugene City Council initiated the code amendments being processed concurrently with the Willakenzie Area Plan amendments. 22 In May 2003, Arlie & Company also submitted a tentative Planned Unit Development application for Crescent Village for City staff to review for completeness. The PUD contains a total of 631 dwellings (exceeding the minimum required residential density) and a wide range of office and retail uses in a transit oriented design. The PUD will be processed following Council approval of the pending plan, zoning map, and code changes. The Crescent Village related plan amendments include a request to increase the amount of land available in the node for employment and commercial services. Sufficient area will remain in the node to achieve residential density objectives. The zoning and overlay zone maps amendments will result in a/PD Planned Unit Development overlay being applied to the entire area within the Crescent Village boundary to ensure that the master plan is completed prior to any development. The/ND Nodal Development designation on the Metro Plan will remain, along with the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone. The Willakenzie Area Plan text amendments will clarify that the area within Crescent Village is no longer planned for a future hospital or major medical facility. It also allows a relaxation of the FAR for Crescent Village from the 1.0 in the/ND overlay to .4. The amendments also include a provision allowing with an approved PUD, a drive-through facility, but only for pharmaceutical prescription dispensing or financial services. During review of the proposed Crescent Village, the City of Eugene, Arlie & Company and ODOT reached agreement on how to mitigate the effects of the plan and zoning map amendments on the transportation system. The ordinance before the City Council includes a maximum land use intensity. The Eugene Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments related to Crescent Village on August 12, 2003 and a work session on September 8, 2003. The commission forwarded a unanimous recommendation to approve the requested amendments. The Eugene City Council conducted a public hearing on October 13, 2003 and is in the processing of considering the proposed ordinance. Public testimony from neighbors that live in the low-density residential areas to the east of the proposed high- density, mixed use development spoke in favor of the key design features in Crescent Village. The neighborhood chair initially raised concerns regarding potential traffic impacts, but was satisfied with the agreed upon approach towards mitigation in the ordinance. The Crescent Village PUD is still being reviewed for completeness, but is an excellent example of a collaborative effort between City staff, neighbors, public agencies, and the developer to design a master plan achieving the principles of nodal development. 23 Crescent Avenue Nodal Development Area Gilbert The Gilbert node consists of approximately 66 acres developed for a mix of multi-family residential, commercial and institutional uses. Key landmarks include the Gilbert Shopping Center, Fairfield Elementary School, Lane Educational District offices, and the Jacob's Lane low-income housing development. Less than one acre within the node is vacant. Residential development within the node is relatively dense, with an estimated net density of almost 20 units per acre. The Eugene City Council selected the Gilbert area as a high-priority area for nodal development because of its proximity to Highway 99 North, which the Council had previously identified as a future Bus Rapid Transit corridor. The mix of residential and commercial land uses within a quarter mile radius of the future BRT corridor, as well as the shopping center's redevelopmnent potential, were also key factors in Council's selection of the Gilbert node. The majority of public testimony was submitted by business owners opposed to implementation of nodal development in the Gilbert area. The testimony describes the Gilbert Shopping Center as an area that once functioned as a commercial center but no longer possesses commercial viability. Business owners concluded that the proposed/ND Overlay zone provisions would contribute to the decline of the Gilbert Shopping Center rather than to its revitalization. Public heating testimony and discussions with staff indicated that: · The commercial center is no longer capable of competing for a grocery store or similar anchor and is increasingly dependent on auto-related and other community or regional commercial uses to retain tenants. · The future viability of the Gilbert Shopping Center depends on phased redevelopment. · The/ND Overlay requirements for dense, compact commercial redevelopment will discourage businesses from revitalizing and re-using commercial sites in the Gilbert center. · Specific/ND overlay zone requirements, such as the minimum FAR requirement, will make redevelopment cost prohibitive. · One property owner estimated that redevelopment of the shopping center, consistent with the/ND overlay provisions, would require tripling the existing square footage and construction of a parking structure, at a total estimated minimal investment of 33 to 38 million dollars. · The maximum size requirement for commercial facilities and the prohibition of motor vehicle related uses is contrary to the market demands for those uses in this particular area. · The minimum setback provisions of the/ND overlay zone are of questionable benefit in a highway location. · The Gilbert center is located on Highway 99, in the middle of what is essentially a 2 mile long commercial strip. Other nearby commercial property would not be constrained by the/ND Overlay provisions, putting the Gilbert Center at a competitive disadvantage. · In the near term, retention of existing businesses and revitalization is a more realistic nodal development goal than a complete redevelopment scenario. In the long term, redevelopment of Fairfield (a local access street abutting the rear of the commercial center) as a "Main Street", similar _ to Garden Way in the Chase Garden node, is a possibility. · The provisions of the/ND Overlay offer little in regard to the viability of existing development and, by requiring compact and dense redevelopment, may limit the ability of the property owners to respond to changing market trends through redevelopment. · The fact that the Gilbert center once functioned as a viable commercial node makes this area unique. In their post-heating work sessions on the Gilbert node, the Planning Commission raised a number of concerns regarding the provisions of the/ND Overlay zone and questioned whether they would foster nodal development within the Gilbert area as intended. They noted that the Fairfield "Main Street" idea raised at 25 the hearing would not be explored and would not be realized through the application of the overlay zone provisions to the area. They also questioned whether imposing limitations on uses and development along Highway99 North would advance the goals of nodal development, particularly if these goals were otherwise served by providing for "Main Street" development along Fairfield with adequate transit service and pedestrian and bicycle connections to the future transit corridor along Highway 99. Ultimately, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council not apply the/ND Overlay zone to the Gilbert area, citing a number of concerns with the overlay zone and the need for site specific planning in the Gilbert area, with participation of property owners and residents and consideration of market forces. The Council agreed with the Planning Commission recommendation and postponed action on the Gilbert node pending resolution of identified problems with the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone provisions. 26 Gilbert Nodal Development Area 29th and Willamette The proposal for nodal development designation and overlay zone engendered heavy community and business response. The Friendly Area Neighborhood has been researching the concept for several years and was an early supporter of the node. They had engaged the City in working on transportation and pedestrian improvements in the area during the last year. These included an analysis of limited safe pedestrian crossing locations along Willamette, an absence of street trees, and the need for marketing the businesses along the stretch from 24th to 29th. Neighborhood efforts, not specifically related to the nodal designation process the City engaged in, but in preparation and support of the concept, resulted in the following: · City funding of a new traffic signal at 25th Avenue in a heavily-used pedestrian area · Eugene Tree Foundation effort to plant trees along this section of Willamette · Neighborhood group sponsorship of a Walking Tour map of the commercial area Once the proposal for the Nodal Designation and Overlay was announced, businesses became engaged and many felt they needed more time to understand the concept. Some were fearful of the impact of the overlay zone requirements and organized to modify the process. They generally wished for more time and for a relaxation of requirements. Businesses were particularly concerned about the intensity of development required (multi-story, pressure on parking, moving buildings toward the street) if they were to redevelop their properties. The group followed up with entreaties to the City to help them make their area more attractive outside the nodal development process. Significant testimony, including professional research, came in regarding risks to owners by the intensity of development required under the nodal overlay and its' incompatibility with the market and land values in the area. This testimony was reinforced and incorporated in at least one other node testimony. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the designation, and denial of the overlay zone, while working toward a solution wherein the overlay zone could be redesignated and applied at a later date. On May 13, 2003 the City Council denied both, some councilors being influenced by what they learned from the business testimony in particular, others out of concern that a revised overlay zone might be jeopardized by the adoption of the designation. When it became clear that the/ND overlay zone was not going to be accepted by commercial property owners in this area, the City applied for a TGM grant, for the 2003-2005 cycle, to accomplish the following general purposes: (1) Determine the feasibility of pedestrian, alternative mode-friendly ("nodal") commercial development in this older, existing strip commercial area; and (2) provide a realistic, feasible plan for achieving either nodal development patterns or, if that is not fully feasible, a plan for improved pedestrian safety, pedestrian and bicycle access, aesthetics, connections to the surrounding neighborhood, and better business climate. The plan would have been prepared by City staff and consultants, utilizing public workshops and one-on-one contact with owners and operators of the businesses. This grant would have been supplemented by additional City funding. This TGM grant application was denied. 28 29th and Willamette Nodal Development Area 29th & Willamette Nodal Development Area W. 11th at Chambers There have been two attempts to rezone the "Chambers Node" area to encourage higher intensity density development and integrated uses, first through a specific planning project (1999- 2000) and, again, with the/ND Nodal Development Overlay Zone (2002). Using a 1999-2001 TGM grant for support, the City studied the 81 acre, 28 block area surrounding the intersection of 11th Avenue and Chambers Street, identified in TransPlan as potential node site #1C. This established neighborhood had many of the components one would expect in a node: mix of housing types and densities (existing gross density is 12.3 units/acre), commercially-zoned land, grid street pattern, neighborhood park, nearby schools and churches, and good transit service. Yet several conditions soon became apparent, as listed below, that prevented the City from successfully adopting a nodal development strategy. The program called for extensive public outreach and participation in the data gathering and plan development stages of the process. Public participation was great from the beginning. General meetings drew 80-100 participants, mostly residents. City staff met with smaller groups, business owners, and neighborhood organizations dozens of times. Keeping the interested parties informed and involved became a huge, expensive, and staff intensive endeavor. The short TGM funding cycle, exacerbated by an 8 month delay in grant awards, required that studies be finished and products published more quickly than was comfortable to accommodate the large amount of public interest. · The proposed nodal development area was bordered on three sides by commercial streets. Successful "Main Street" design to accommodate pedestrians requires attention to both sides of the street; hence, the nodal boundaries were determined to be wrong. · Two of the commercial streets bordering the project area were state highways, which were not conducive to pedestrian activity. · Area residents were very concerned that higher densities would result in decreased property values, increased crime, increased traffic, and removal of many historic structures. Crime prevention became a major component of all the meetings. · Many residents discovered (or were reminded) that their properties were already zoned for higher densities than the existing development pattern would indicate. The public discussion began to turn to ideas about how to reduce permitted densities and prohibit alley-access dwellings. · Residents wanted discretionary architectural review imposed on all new structures, which the City could not afford to implement. · The study area included four blocks of industrial property, which did not fit into the nodal development scenario. The concept of a new mixed-use transitional zone emerged, but the City had insufficient resources to create and implement the new zone within the timeframe of the study. Owners of industrial properties were dubious of the proposal. · Owners of commercial property were not supportive of the traffic solutions proposed that converted one-way streets to two-way, caused assessments, or changed driveways or access points. Commercial owners were adamantly opposed to any restrictions on use (there are several automobile sales and service establishments in the area) or design standards. · This node is not located in an established urban renewal area. In the sub-area most conducive for aggressive residential redevelopment, such activity would displace lower income owner/occupants already living at above the targeted 12 dwellings per acre. · The area's major grocer relocated far from this node. The building has since been purchased by the State of Oregon and converted into offices. · ODOT did not comment on the suggested improvements for state roads. · Lane Transit District's early plans for a Bus Rapid Transit route conflicted with the recommended pedestrian improvements on 1 lth Avenue, the proposed commercial hub for the neighborhood. 30 · This conflict was never resolved; the City and LTD have pursued another route for study at this time. · The City did not have the capital funding to fix problems found regarding alley and sidewalk improvements, or pedestrian crossings on busy streets. A study that provides recommendations for improving nodal conditions within this neighborhood was completed. Area residents and business interests did not see sufficient benefit to being designated a node or having their zoning changed. Opposition was so strong that the City decided to let the recommendations lie for a while. During the following 2001-03 TGM grant cycle, the City attempted to apply the/ND overlay zone to the Chambers Node. The Planning Commission and City Council held hearings on the proposed application of the/ND Metro Plan DeSignation and/ND Nodal Development Overlay zone. Public testimony was overwhelmingly in opposition to the nodal designation and overlay zoning for the same reasons listed above. A major concern was that there were no safeguards included in the/ND overlay to ensure that the existing character of the neighborhood would not be negatively impacted by the increased densities inherent in nodal developments. Area residents testified that they found the overlay zone to be more detrimental to the neighborhood, and with fewer benefits, than the original plan completed years earlier. They asked the Council to halt the overlay zone process and resume the planning process begun in 1998. The overlay zone was not approved for this node. 31 Chambers Nodal Development Area ~ .~ ~ ~,~--~--- -- ~._~_U_:L ~ ~ ~ ~ _:: :----: ::-- o, 32 W. 18th / Churchill The Churchill node includes approximately 61 acres of land on a total of 205 tax lots. Nearly 75% of the land (45 acres) is zoned for low-density residential development; 10% (6 acres) for retail and office development; with the remainder allocated to an elementary school zoned PL Public Land. Key factors for selection of this high-priority node included the potential for additional neighborhood commercial services, and identification of West 18th Avenue by the Lane Transit District as a future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor. Staffs analysis and recommendations concerning the Churchill node identified characteristics of the area which would assist in meeting the stated goals of the nodal development concept. Those characteristics include: an existing housing mix that consists of single-family and multi-family housing with a net density of approximately 13 dwelling units per acre · proximity of housing to an existing neighborhood-scale commercial center (Churchill Plaza) · potential for additional infill commercial development · current level of transit service with potential for BRT enhancements While the existing commercial center is certainly a defining feature of the proposed node, the current floor area ratio of the development is approximately 0.30, which is far below the FAR level targeted by the/ND Overlay zone. In it's discussion about the node, the Planning Commission found that the/ND Overlay zone's 1.0 FAR requirement would represent a significant (if not cost prohibitive) barrier to redevelopment of the commercial area within the node. This issue, as well as other concerns expressed by the Planning Commission in the mid-project review and recommendations to the City Council resulted in a specific recommendation not to apply the/ND overlay zone to the Churchill node. However, the Planning Commission expressed their continued support and commitment to the concept of nodal development by recommending approval of the Metro Plan designation change for the Churchill node. Notably, relatively little public testimony was received during the public hearing process for the Churchill node, both before the Planning Commission and City Council. Most input was received informally at a neighborhood meeting attended by Planning staff. None was received from the commercial property owners within the area, and property owners that did express concem were primarily focused on their ability to remodel or expand existing single-family residential development. The City council held a public hearing in June, 2003 regarding the adoption of the proposed/ND ordinances, but action on the ordinances was postponed at the direction of the Mayor and City Manager. Even though the Planning Commission did not recommend application of the/ND overlay zone to the area, staffs recommendation to the City Council was to approve the Metro Plan designation change as well as the rezoning, based on findings of consistency with the applicable approval criteria. At this point, action has not been rescheduled for the Churchill node. 33 Churchill Nodal Development Area 18T H AVE Walnut Street Station The 45 acre Walnut Street Station nodal development area was chosen as a high priority nodal development area because of the location of a bus rapid transit station to be constructed at the comer of Franklin Boulevard and Walnut Street in the near future. The nodal development area includes property generally within walking distance (1/4 mile) of the future bus rapid transit station with the exception of most properties zoned for low density residential uses. This area is developed but contains large underdeveloped properties. For instance, the potential for redevelopment of a vacant Department of Motor Vehicles office property and ODOT maintenance yard was also a factor in choosing the area as a high-priority node. Other large properties that could be redeveloped in the future to more intense land uses, include large car sales lots, a large hotel property with a large parking lot, and an underdeveloped property zoned for high density residential uses. The current Walnut Street Station nodal development boundary was modified from it's proposed boundaries at 57 acres to 45 acres due to neighborhood opposition to the inclusion of low density residentially (R-1) zoned areas being within the proposed node boundaries south of East 15th Avenue to East 17th Avenue. Two large meetings were held with the neighborhood organization to promote and explain the nodal development concept and boundaries. Neighborhood support for the nodal development concept was obtained in regards to commercially-zoned, medium-or high-density residentially zoned areas within the node, but opposition to including blocks of low density residentially zoned property within the node was strident. After holding a public hearing, the City Council requested that the boundary of the nodal development area exclude most of the low density residentially zoned properties that were the subject of opposition by neighborhood residents (R-1 zoned areas south of East 15th Avenue). Opposition by commercial property owners and motor vehicle-related businesses was heard by the Council at the public heating and in the written testimony. Opposition focused on specific provisions in the proposed/ND Nodal Development Overlay zone, particularly in reaction to the floor-to-area ratio requirements for new or expanded businesses, and the listing of some motor-vehicle uses as prohibited in the zoning overlay. The council has deferred action on the proposed ordinances until the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone provisions are re-evaluated and updated in response to public opposition and issues raised by the Planning Commission. During the course of the project public involvement was high. Two large neighborhood meetings were held with City Planning staff. Staff met with individual neighbors, property owners, and business owners as requested. Over 58 letters and many oversize exhibits were submitted as testimony during the two public hearings held before the Planning Commission and the City Council on March 11, 2003 and May 12, 2003. The City Council and Planning Commission each held work sessions following their public heatings. 35 Walnut Street Station Nodal Development Area Downtown/Southbank Often referred to as our "Mother Node," Downtown Eugene is a regional center for commerce, finance, education, government, transportation, and boasts approximately 2,500 housing units. As a central business district, Downtown Eugene is automatically considered a "mixed-use, pedestrian friendly center or neighborhood" pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060(7). Downtown Eugene accommodates higher densities, provides economies of scale and ample opportunities for infill. Therefore, in recent years, the city has focused considerable energy on activities that will increase downtown's inherent growth and transportation efficiency. In 1993, the City adopted a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) District zoning overlay for the greater downtown area to insure that new development was constructed in a manner consistent with City goals to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation in the area by imposing parking restrictions, design standards and building orientation requirements. At the same time, the City established minimum floor-area ratios (FAR's) for the downtown core (2.0 FAR) and surrounding areas (1.0 FAR) to encourage multi-story development and more intensive use of commercial lots. Other efforts included expanding the parking exempt district to encourage redevelopment of surface parking lots, encouraging downtown housing with tax incentives and redevelopment assistance, and revitalizing the downtown core by constructing new pedestrian-friendly streets. Past planning activities and future implementation strategies are summarized in the draft Eugene Downtown Plan, scheduled for adoption by March 2004. The plan was approved by the Eugene Planning Commission in September 2003. Concurrent with plan adoption, the city will apply a 'ND' Nodal Development land use designation to the core commercial area, new federal courthouse district, and developable riverfront property owned by Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB). Highlights of recent planning activities and components of the Downtown Plan include the following: · Construction of Lane Transit District's regional transit center, the central hub for bus travel and the soon-to-be constructed first phase Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Now over 14,000 bus transit boardings and deboardings happen Downtown each weekday. · Specific area planning for sub-areas within the downtown (e.g., South Bank Study, North End Study, Courthouse Area Concept Plan, Depot Plan), all of which emphasize intensification of use and improved circulation. · Acquisition and planned rehabilitation of Eugene's historic train depot into a multi-modal transit destination. · Initiation of"The Breeze' shuttle bus service that connects most downtown activity centers to the University of Oregon, regional train station, regional shopping center, and bus station. · Retention of the regional federal courthouse in a downtown setting. · Plans to revitalize a former industrial area into the home of a new regional federal courthouse and vibrant mixed use neighborhood. These plans include a significant reworking of local streets to provide improved pedestrian access between downtown, the Courthouse District, University of Oregon's Riverfront Research Park, and the Willamette River greenway. Former industrial properties will be rezoned to encourage mixed use development. · Encourage relocation of EWEB offices, storage and utility yards from their riverfront properties, and redevelopment of the site as a high density connection between downtown, the Willamette River Greenway, and Courthouse District. The Downtown Plan will require a master redevelopment plan for the entire property before any change in use or zone change. · Introduction of "Great Streets" that provide a network of vibrant, commercially successful places where people want to walk. The Great Streets of 5th Avenue, Willamette Street, and Broadway will connect most downtown activity centers and create the 'critical mass' of 37 activity attractive to investors, residents, and businesses. Creation of a "Civic Street" (8th Avenue) to connect the Lane County Administration Building, Eugene City Hall, new federal courthouse, and centrally located Park Blocks, and to encourage retention of important civic functions in a downtown setting. Converting the failed pedestrian plaza along Broadway street into a new "Great Street" section in 2002. Special design standards were adopted. · Parking fees collected to support structured parking. · Employment fees are collected to help fund downtown bus services. The City provides free bus passes to all its employees. · The City provides bike parking in most downtown areas. · The City participated in the joint public/private venture, the award winning mixed-use "Broadway Place," located at the comer of Broadway and Chamelton Streets. · Enlarged and temporally extended the Downtown and Riverfront urban renewal districts to provide additional economic tools to implement the Downtown Plan and support downtown housing. · Community Development Block grants and other funds are used to support downtown housing. · New or expanded Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) and Vertical Housing tax exemption financing options to support downtown housing and mixed use development. · Sale of two public properties to encourage high density ownership housing and highly active employment near the transit station. · Conducting the 'Downtown Area Housing Policy Analysis' (DAHPA) to find the proper balance between the City's goals for high density infill in and near the downtown core and its equal desire to protect the special character of our older inner-city neighborhoods. The results will identify opportunities for strategic infill and enhanced livability in the greater downtown area. · Hosted two 'Smart Growth' workshops (with state grant funding) for residents and development interests. The City has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare cohesive, well-supported, multi-objective plans to make Downtown Eugene a more pedestrian friendly, more intensively mixed-use, transit oriented regional center and neighborhood. In the 2003-2005 Biennium, the City applied for two TGM grants to support nodal development in the downtown context: (1) Design and regulatory support for several pedestrian-oriented "Great Streets," one of which will be constructed next year, and (2) A mixed-use redevelopment plan for the extensive EWEB riverfront holdings. Both applications were denied. 38 Downtown Nodal Development Area ATTACHMENT G_ NODAL DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION -- MID-PROJECT REVIEW Report and Recommendations of the Planning Commission to the City Council April 8, 2003 Introduction Throughout the process leading to the adoption of the updated TransPlan and related amendments to the Metro Plan, the Planning Commission strongly supported nodal development as the key strategy to integrate land use and transportation planning and achieve Eugene's 1998 growth management policies. In our July 19, 1999 comments forwarding highlights of our review of the February 1998 draft TransPlan to the City Council, we expressed that support to the Council, along with our concern about timely implementation of nodal development. We saw adoption of the nodal development policy and principles in the draft TransPlan and related Metro Plan amendments as a significant step in furthering Eugene growth management policy 10, "Encourage the creation of transportation-efficient land use patterns and implementation of nodal development concepts." We also recognized that mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development was still viewed as a new concept to many in our area and supported efforts and incentives to overcome real or perceived barriers to nodal development, including market skepticism. At that time, we were looking to the nodal development pilot projects to better define, in a highly visual way, the nodal concept and to develop new zoning tools to address the regulatory barriers. Much has happened since 1999. The draft TransPlan went through a lengthy review process prior to its adoption in the fall of 2001 and an additional policy was added at the request of the Department of Land Conservation and Development to provide direction on the timing of nodal development implementation. That policy, TransPlan Land Use Policy #5, calls for application of the ND Nodal Development Metro Plan designation and for adoption and application of measures to protect designated nodes from incompatible development to selected areas within three years of TransPlan. In adopting Commission Order 01-LCDC-024 approving the TransPlan alternative performance measures, the Land Conservation and Development Commission recommended that this work be completed within two years of TransPlan adoption, by the fall of 2003. A new overlay zone, the/ND Nodal Development Overlay zone, was prepared to serve as the interim zoning measure to protect the designated nodes from incompatible development and was adopted by City Council as part of the updated Land Use Code. This overlay zone was readopted when the majority of the Land Use Code was readopted, with amendments, in May 2002, effective June 1, 2002. In support of Eugene's nodal development implementation effort, the City was awarded a grant from the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) program for the 2001-2003 biennium for the Metro Plan amendment/overlay zone project. The Planning Commission recommended and, in February 2002, the City Council approved eight areas as high-priority areas for short-term nodal development implementation. The City Council initiated the Metro Plan amendments and overlay zone amendments for these eight areas in March 2002. The Planning Commission held public hearings on the first two areas, Crescent Avenue and Danebo, in December 2002. At that time, the Commission requested a mid-project review following completion of the Planning Commission recommendation on the first four of the eight nodal development areas. On March 24, 2003, the Planning Commission discussed issues and concerns related to nodal development implementation and requested that this report and recommendations be included with the materials for the April 14, 2003 City Council public hearing on the proposed 29th and Willamette nodal development area. Affirmation of Support for Nodal Development First, we wish to affirm our continued support for the concept of nodal development. We support the intent and fundamental principles adopted as part of TransPlan. We also note that a majority of the testimony we have received through the six public heatings we have conducted supports the concept of nodal development. Even if nodal development implementation were not required through TransPlan, it would be an important part of the City's Growth Management efforts. Concerns with the Current Process From the very first of our public hearings, on the Crescent Avenue nodal development area, we heard comments and concerns that could not effectively be addressed through the use of an overlay zone. We stated to the Council at that time, and believe even more strongly today, that "this and all future nodes require a currently unscheduled nodal planning process to make the goals of nodal development attainable and to make this development compatible with adjacent properties." Some specific issues raised in testimony included both how to obtain compatibility with existing development within the node and how to obtain compatibility of development within the node with existing development adjacent to the node. We noted the limitation in addressing these kinds of compatibility issues when the process does not allow a change to the underlying Metro Plan diagram designation and base zone for the property. We also noted the difficulty in achieving the nodal development characteristics -- the fundamental principles that define nodal development -- and in achieving both the density and employment goals in the TransPlan alternative performance measures without being able to develop an overall plan for the entire nodal development area. - For the Royal Avenue and Chase Gardens areas, we were able to hear from property owners and residents from the beginning through a collaborative process to explore how to achieve nodal development in these areas. For Chase Gardens, in particular, we were hearing from those who wanted to develop the property in the short-term. To date, we haven't seen another way to do the kind of planning required to achieve the nodal development characteristics without preparing site specific plans. The other disadvantage of the current process is that, since we are adding an overlay Metro Plan designation and overlay zone to the areas, people are not notified as far in advance of the Planning Commission public hearing as they would be if a specific plan were being developed for the area. Although staff have provided additional information with public hearing notices and drop-in information sessions prior to the public hearings, and staff and Planning Commissioners have attended neighborhood meetings to discuss nodal development, we appreciate the concern expressed by residents and businesses with the short timeframe for action on these eight areas. Finally, we are concerned that the current process is about regulation, not about assistance or incentives to those wish to achieve nodal development concepts. Concerns with the Current Code Most of the testimony we have heard objecting to the actions before us have been objections or concerns about specific provisions in the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone. As noted above, the majority of the testimony has been in support of the concept of nodal development -- but not the overlay zone regulations that would implement it. A minority of those testifying stated that the concepts of nodal development weren't appropriate in their vicinity. The concerns fall into three general categories: 1) specific commercial zone requirements, 2) specific residential zone requirements and 3) adjustment review. In evaluating these concerns, we reviewed the original May 2000 draft of the/ND Nodal Development zone and considered the extent to which amendments to the draft, either through policy decisions or drafting errors, had led to the concerns we have heard in testimony. Based on our evaluation, we believe that many of these concerns are valid and that amendments to the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone should be considered as soon as possible. In our discussion, we tried to find a balance between being so prescriptive that no development occurs and being so liberal that nothing changes. We tried to consider the implications for residential and commercial development, for new development and expansion of existing development, and for large and small lot development. Each circumstance, of course, provides its own unique challenges and opportunities. The following provides a smnmary of the concerns and a list of amendments to the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone recommended by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is requesting that the Council initiate these amendments to the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone. Commercial Zone Requirements. Of the commercial zone concerns heard in testimony, the one we have heard most often -- from both large and small commercial property owners and businesses -- is with the 1:1 minimum floor area ratio (FAR) requirement. The original May 2000 draft provided for .6:1, slightly lower than the .65:1 -FAR then required in the/TD Transit Oriented Development overlay zone for areas outside the downtown core. The Commission recommended .65:1 for consistency with the/TD Transit Oriented Development zone areas outside of the downtown core. The City Council, through amendment, set the minimum FAR for commercial zones at 1:1. It is our understanding that the Council intent was to require a minimum of two-stoW buildings in nodal area, but testimony we have received indicates that a minimum 1:1 FAR may actually require three-story or even four-story buildings in some situations. Since the/ND overlay zone was adopted the Planning Commission and City Council have completed work on the Royal Avenue and Chase Gardens nodal development areas. These ordinances were based on detailed planning for the areas, including a market analysis. For the Royal Avenue node, the minimum FAR for commercial development is .5:1. For Chase Gardens, a different approach was taken in that two functional floors is required for development fronting specific streets, but there is not a minimum FAR overall. Based on the Chase Gardens special area zone, however, a likely FAR outcome is about .45:1. For both Royal Avenue and Chase Gardens, both public testimony and the market analysis provided by project consultants supported the lower FAR. To aide the Planning Commission's discussion of the consequences of the FAR requirement, Commissioner Duncan prepared examples of the building size required for three properties within the 29th and Willamette nodal development area under the current 1:1 FAR and, alternative, a reduced .5:1 FAR if the 30% expansion threshold is crossed. These examples are attached. Based on the testimony and these examples, the Planning Commission discussed alternatives to the current 1:1 FAR requirement. Recommending a reduction in the requirement from 1:1 to .5:1 was discussed. Several Commissioners questioned whether even .5:1 was a realistic requirement and suggested that there be no FAR requirement at all; others felt that a FAR requirement was necessary to achieve the employment density projected for nodes. Based on our discussion, we are recommending that a different approach be taken with commercial and industrial development standards for nodal development areas. Rather than a list of standards in the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone which must all be met, we are suggesting that a "menu" approach be used. Under this approach, there would still be a list of standards in the/ND overlay zone, but the applicant would choose which of a minimum number of standards to meet rather than having to meet all of them. Floor area ratio would be one of the standards on the "menu," along with standards such as building orientation, building setbacks, parking between buildings and the street and others which further the principles of nodal development. We also noted that the/TD Transit Oriented Development overlay zone FAR requirement for areas outside the downtown core is also currently 1:1, but thought that proper time to reconsider the FAR requirement for that area would be through the Downtown Plan update. Planning Commission Recommendation #I: Amend the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone to replace the FAR requirement for the commercial and industrial zones with a "menu" of standards, with a required minimum number of standards which must be met. FAR would be one of the standards on the "menu." Residential Zone Requirements: The primary concerns regarding residential zone development requirements expressed in public testimony deal with requirements for a 15 foot maximum setback, limitations on parking between buildings and the street, and the impact that these requirements would have when applied to new construction or expansion of a single-family residences. Based on the staff review of the legislative history of these provisions and the recollection of Commissioners who were present during the Commission's discussions in 2000, it is clear that these provisions were never intended to apply to residential development. For single-family residential development, the requirements for building setback and parking between buildings and the street are impractical and unworkable. For multi-family development, the multi-family standards in the Land Use Code apply to new development and expansion of 20% or more, a trigger which is more restrictive than the 30% trigger in the/ND overlay zone. The/ND overlay zone specifically states that, where overlay zone and base zone provisions conflict, the more restrictive controls. Concerns have also been expressed regarding the impact of the minimum residential density requirements of the/ND overlay zone for the R~2, R-3 and R-4 zones on small infill lots. Unlike the minimum density requirement in the R-1 zone, which applies only to new subdivisions, this requirement appears to apply to all infill development in the medium and high-density zones. This is inconsistent with the base zones, which exempt residentially zoned lots or development sites that are developed and are 13,500 square feet or less in size from the minimum density requirements. This provision was added to the code to allow additional an additional unit on small lots without triggering the full minimum density requirement. Based on our review of these provisions, we believe that the 30% expansion trigger and the provisions for building setbacks and parking between the buildings and the street were not intended to apply to residential development and that the current structure of the/TD overlay zone was the result of a drafting error. Similarly, the exemption fi.om the minimum density requirements in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 base zones should have been applied in the/ND overlay zone Until such time as the Land Use Code is amended, we request that a code interpretation be made to address these issues based on the legislative history. Planning Commission Recommendation #2: Amend the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone to: a) exclude residehtial development from 9. 42 70(3), which applies the/ND requirements to an expansion of 30% or more of the total existing building square footage on the development site; and b) exclude residential zones from the standards in 9. 4290(2) Building Setbacks and (3) Parking Between Buildings and the Street to commercial and industrial zones. c) exempt residentially zoned lots or development sites in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones that are developed are 13,500 square feet or less in size from the from the minimum residential density requirements. Adjustment Review Under the amendments recently adopted by the City Council, the criterion for approval of an adjustment to the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone is consistency with the purpose statement. We agree that consistency with the purpose statement is an appropriate criterion, but believe that the purpose statement should b.e expanded to list all the fundamental characteristics of nodal development, not just the one related to residential density. We do not, however, believe that a liberal adjustment review process is the solution for the flaws in the existing/ND Nodal Development overlay zone. As reported above, we believe that the solution for those flaws is amendments to the/ND overlay zone adopted through a public process. Moreover, in recommending the adjustment review process to the City Council as part of the new Land Use Code, we anticipated that most adjustments would be minor deviations from the code requirements. An adjustment from 1:1 FAR to .5:1 FAR, for example, goes beyond what we had anticipated through the adjustment review process. Therefore, our recommended revision to the purpose statement is intended to be made in conjunction with revisions to the standards of the/ND overlay zone, not in place of standards revisions. Currently, the purpose statement includes the following statement: "It is intended that each node identified by the/ND overlay zone achieve an average overall residential density of at least 12 units per net residential acre." As was discussed for the Crescent Avenue node, this provides a way to evaluate a request for an adjustment to the minimum density standards established in the overlay zone. It is our recommendation to include the other fundamental characteristics that define nodal development in the purpose statement as well for use in evaluating adjustment requests. Planning Commission Recommendation #3: Amend Section 9. 4250 Purpose of/ND Nodal Development Overlay Zone to expand the intent statement, currently limited to the residential density objective, to include the additional fundamental characteristics of nodal development to this section. These additional fundamental characteristics are: · Design elements that result in pedestrian-friendly environments that support transit use, walking and bicycling; that promote a sense of community, and that improve livability; · A transit stop that is within walking distance (generally 1/4 mile) of anywhere in the node; · Mixed land uses that offer a variety of services, activities and destinations within easy, comfortable walking and biking distance of most home; · Public spaces, such as parks and open space, and other public facilities that can be reached without driving. 6 Conclusion It is because we are so committed to the concept of nodal development that we want to see nodal development implemented in a way achieves the results that were intended in TransPlan and the Growth Management study. Although we continue to believe that detailed planning for each node is the real solution to the issues and concems we have heard to date, the amendments to the /ND overlay zone suggested above would make the overlay zone workable as an interim measure in the short-run. We strongly urge the City Council to initiate these amendments to the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone. Attachment: Examples of the Current and Suggested FARs of 1:1 and .5:1 Proposed Nodal Development Areas Crescent Daneb¢ Gilbert Lower River Road Chambers Walnut Street Station Churchill 29th & Willamette ~ Proposed Nodal ~ Development Areas --Eugene City Limits EXAMPLES OF THE CURRENT AND SUGGESTED FARS OF 1.0 AND .5 The following three examples are intended to apply the base FARs to properties with the 29th and Willamette Street Node to view the affects of those proposed FARs. These examples do not consider any market forces that would have a direct bearing any of these projects, such as, the adjustment process, financial feasibility, project financing, design potential, etc. The examples are intended to show the building size required if the 30% expansion threshold is crossed and a rough estimate of' the cost outlay to meet that requirement. Glenwood Caf6 Building Size: 2,112 sf Current FAR .10 Land Size: 20,880 sf 30% Expansion = 635 sf, an expansion larger that this would cause the FAR requirement below to be triggered. FAR of 1.0 - An additional 18,768 sf would have to be built. At a cost of $125/sf would reqUire an outlay for just the building of approximately $2.35M. This does not address the issues of parking. FAR of .5 - An additional 8,328 sfwould have to be built. At a cost of $125/sfwould require an outlay for just the building of approximately $1.04M. Sunrise Asian Market Current FAR .21 Building Size: 6,664 sf Land Size: 31,420 sf 30% Expansion = 2,000 sf, an expansion larger that this would cause the FAR requirement below to be triggered. FAR of 1.0 - An additional 24,756 sf would have to be built. At a cost of $125/sf would require an outlay for just the building of approximately $3.1M. This does not address the issues of parking. FAR of .5 - An additional 9,046 sfwould have to be built. At a cost of $125/sfwould require an outlay for just the building of approximately $1.13M. Willamette Plaza Building Size: 125,000 sf Current FAR .24 Land Size: 525,000 sf 30% Expansion = 37,500 sf, an expansion larger that this would cause the FAR requirement below to be triggered. FAR of 1.0 - An additional 400,000sfwould have to be built. Parking at 3.5 cars/I,000 sf of building would require 1,850 parking spaces at 350sf/ space equals 647,500 sf 1 Total building size, commercial space and parking is 1,172,500 sf Using 20% of the total site (525,000 sf) for landscaping, drive access, walkways etc., leaves an available site size to construct the buildings of 420,000 sf (525,000 sf X .8). Dividing the total square footage of buildings by the available land to build, indicates that most of the building site (420,000 sf used for the buildings) would have to be covered with a solid three story building. Because none of the existing buildings could be modified tO a three story structure, the existing buildings would have to be removed. The following calculations show the possible cash layout excluding demolition, required to meet this FAR requirement. 525,000 sfofbuilding ~ $125/sf= $65,625,000 1,850 parking space ~ $15,000/sp=$27,750,000 TOTAL= $93,375,000 FAR of .5 - An additional 137,500sfwould have to be built, more than doubling the size of the size of the project. The additional size is more square feet than the Home Depot building. Parking at 3.5 cars/I,000 sf of building would require 925 parking spaces at 350sf/ space equals 322,000 sf Total building size, commercial space and parking is 584,500 sf In this scenario, the most cost effective way to develop is to retain the existing buildings. The original buildings needs 125,000 sf of land, the new 137,500 building could be constructed in two stories (most economical), thus using 69,000 sf of land. Parking is divided into 250 surface spaces and a two-story parking structure for the additional 675 parking spaces, using 205,625 sf. Total land area required is 400,000 sf or slightly less than 80% of the site. The remainder would be used for landscaping, drive access, walkways etc. Under this scenario 60% of the site would be covered with structures (either buildings or parking structures) Because none of the existing buildings could be modified to a three story structure, the existing buildings would have to be removed. The following calculations show the possible cash layout includes renovation of the existing buildings (to reflect the quality, o_f the new buildings) required to meet this FAR requirement. 125,000 sfofbuilding ~ $50/sf= $6,250,000 137,500 sf of building ~$125/sf=$17,187,500 675 parking space ~ $15,000/sp=$10,125,000 TOTAL= $33,562,500 2 ATTACHMENT H AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY April 26, 2004 TO: Eugene Planning Commission FROM: Allen Lowe, Planning Division SUBJECT: Nodal Development Implementation: Two Year Work Program ACTION REQUESTED: Hold a work session to discuss the draft work program. BRIEFING STATEMENT: This meeting provides an opportUnity for the Planning Commission to continue discussion of strategies for implementing the nodal development concept within the city. The City Council has recently determined that nodal development implementation is the number one priority for the Planning Division work program for the current year. The draft work program is an outgrowth of the November 2003, February 2004, and March 2004 work sessions on the nodal development program where a broad range of issues related to the program were discussed. BACKGROUND: The nodal development concept is at the heart of Eugene's transportation and growth management strategies and the City has aggressively pursued the implementation of the concept over the past 7 years. In that time, Eugene has provided specific area plans, zoning, or metro Plan designations for seven nodal development areas covering almost 900 acres of land. Early implementation efforts were focused on specific area planning in the West Royal, Chase Gardens and Chambers nodes. While these efforts were comprehensive and thorough, they were also very expensive and took a great deal of time to complete. With the encouragement of the State of Oregon, the City tried a different implementation approach in 2001 with the introduction of the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone process. That process was unsuccessful resulting in widespread community opposition to a "one-size-fits-all" approach to nodal development implementation. The City is now attempting to develop another approach to implementation. This approach will require two years to lay the groundwork and to develop the basic tools necessary to continue long-term implementation of the program. The two year work program includes seven activities, all of which are directed at correcting deficiencies in the current program and developing new tools that will enable us to work effectively with the many different circumstances and site conditions evident in Eugene. The draft two year work program discussed below includes the following elements: Program Adjustment · Smart Growth Education and Marketing · Overlay Zone Amendments · Potential Nodes Status Report · Chambers Infill and Redevelopment Standards · Mixed Use Zoning. · New Tools Program Adiustments This activity includes corrections to several fundamental program elements. One suggested change would affect the name of the program. City staff, Planning Commissioners, and City Councilors have all heard a variety of comments over the past several years about the use of the term "nodal development". While the term does have a long history of use in local planning lore, having been used in the original version of the Metro Plan and subsequent versions of the same document, it is not a term that is widely understood in the community and does not immediately convey its meaning. Before moving forward any further with implementation of the "node" concept, staff will recommend that the program name be changed to something that can be easily understood by the community-at-large. In the same vein, the "Potential Nodal Development Areas" map included in the adopted TransPlan is the foundation map for the program. Staff will recommend approval of an updated map (for Eugene's program only) that identifies the geographic areas to which the concepts will be applied and differentiates between the types of development desired in those areas. Smart Growth Education and Marketing Materials During the development of the nodal development concept, and as part of the TransPlan process, the City of Eugene participated in the production of numerous documents aimed at educating the public and decision-makers about nodal development. However, for the past 5 years, relatively little emphasis has been placed on program education and marketing. The nodal development concept was carded forward into the Growth Management Study (1997- 1999) and was highly publicized in that work. The City also prepared a four page brochure with illustrations ("Nodal Development in Eugene") and has co-sponsored several speakers on Smart Growth topics, but has had no long-term, coordinated strategy for informing and educating the public, the development community and property owners about this key component of the City's land use program. This activity will focus on the creation and production of various education and marketing materials that will promote and explain the program. This could include the production of one or more documents that explains what nodal development is, why it is important to the City and to community residents, and what needs to be done to insure its implementation. Other materials could include presentation materials for a major outreach effort to civic and neighborhood groups; a media contact plan for pursuing media coverage of implementation efforts; and a speakers program addressing a variety of smart growth related subjects. OverlaF Zone Amendments In May 2003 the City Council unanimously directed the Planning Commission to revise the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone and to address the numerous issues related to nodal development implementation revealed during the Priority Node zoning process. City staff will recommend a process that includes feedback on the draft code revisions from residents and property owners within the eight priority nodeareas before the draft revised overlay zone is brought forward for public hearings. Potential Nodes Status Report The Potential Nodal Development Areas map included in the adopted TransPlan is, essentially, the map that was approved by the TransPlan Land Use Task Force in 1995. A companion to the initial node map, a report entitled Summary Descriptions of Proposed Nodal Development Areas, provided some preliminary assessment of necessary Metro Plan designation changes and noted conditions of various street (bike, transit, pedestrian, alleys) and park facilities with respect to improvements likely to be needed. Attachment B to this staff report is an excerpt from the Summary Descriptions document. In the nine years since that map and Summary document were created, land use changes have not been routinely monitored within the identified areas. Several areas have developed ina manner that is inconsistent with nodal development principles; initial boundaries have changed in others. Many nodes have seen new multi-family or commercial construction within that time. Moreover, little has been done to educate residents and property owners within and around proposed nodes, about the meaning of the nodal designation. One of the primary objectives of this project is to update key information on the development characteristics of each node. This information will provide a realistic assessment of conditions in the node, enabling City staff, the Planning Commission and property owners to identify actions needed to create or enhance the desired node character. A second important objective is to create a dialogue with area residents and property owners that result in a general understanding about future attempts to create a higher-density, mixed-use, transit-oriented development pattern within areas designated as "Potential Nodes". The project will stimulate early neighborhood involvement in establishing the direction for each node, establishing or confirming boundaries, and identifying issues that need to be addressed in order to achieve the goals for a specific node. Chambers Inl~ll and Redevelopment Standards One of the City's earliest implementation efforts (1997-1998) occurred in the Chambers node when that area was selected as one of two State-funded "pilot" nodal development project areas. The project tested the application of new planning tools in a mature neighborhood. The study of the 28 block area was enhanced by the participation of more than 100 area residents and resulted in the preparation of the draft Chambers Node Development Plan. Even though the neighborhood has many of the attributes expected in a node, the plan adoption process ultimately bogged down with unresolved issues that could not be resolved within the time allowed by the State for completion of the project. A public heating was held on the draft plan before the Planning Commission determined that the plan needed more work before it would be ready for adoption. 3 In 2001 the City attempted to apply the/ND Nodal Development Overlay Zone to the Chambers node; the Council and Planning Commission both held public hearings on the proposed application of the/ND Metro Plan designation and/ND Overlay Zone on the area. Public testimony was overwhelmingly in opposition to the designation and zoning with residents citing many of the problems that were left unresolved during the previous process. A major concern was that there were no safeguards included in the/ND overlay to ensure that the existing character of the neighborhood would not be negatively affected by the increased densities inherent in the nodal developments. The Council ultimately rejected the proposal to apply the designation and overlay zone to the area. The City has submitted an Oregon Transportation Growth Management grant application for the current fUnding cycle (2003-2005) to develop residential and commercial infill and redevelopment standards for the Chambers node. This project will attempt to address what was identified as a fundamental problem with the nodal development program; that is, residents of the affected areas have no assurance that new development within the nodes will be compatible with existing development. Residents and property owners want to insure that new residential and commercial development is sensitive to the qualities that make these attractive areas in the first place. The project would be done with the full participation of neighborhood residents and property owners Mixed Use Zoning Districts The City has no mixed use zoning district that can be applied to new development or redevelopment either as an overlay for the base zone or as a zoning district in its own right. Currently, the only mechanisms for approving a mixed-use development within most nodal development areas are through a specific area planning process or a planned unit development. Specific plans for the Royal and Chase Gardens nodes contained commercial and residential mixed use codes that were adopted for those two nodal development areas. This project would use those mixed use codes as a foundation for drafting a set of mixed use zoning district codes that would provide for residential, commercial and industrial mixed use development within specific areas of the city. A separate but related issue involves the difficulty of retrofitting existing low-density residential neighborhoods and industrial areas to allow small amounts of appropriate retail and service-related development in these auto-dependent areas. This project would evaluate the need for a new approach to limited mixing of uses in single-use residential zones and light-medium industrial areas. If need is demonstrated the project will develop a proposal for allowing limited retail and service-related development within residential and light-medium industrial zones. New Tools While many elements of a comprehensive nodal development and smart growth program have been put into place over the past 10 years, several components have not been addressed. There is a need to explore development of other tools that will increase the City's flexibility to respond to the variety of circumstances and site conditions found within the city. Among the questions that need to be answered and tools that need to be developed are the following: 4 Should future UGB expansion areas be master planned? If so, what is the mechanism for initiating and approving the plan? · Should the City require certain large undeveloped parcels within the UGB to create a master plan before development? If so, what is the process and mechanism for approving those plans? · Should those master planned areas be developed according to smart growth principles? If so, what principles? · What criteria and process should be used to identify or approve new nodes or smart growth centers? · Should the City pursue general density increases within TOD corridors? · Should infill and redevelopment standards or guidelines be developed for all nodal development areas? If so, what are those standards and guidelines? · Can the existing development review process be improved to encourage smart growth? · Should the City pursue a dual track review process that would allow a developer to choose between a process based on objective standards and one based on performance guidelines? ITEMS UNDER SEPARATE COVER Attachment A Draft Nodal Development Implementation Two Year Work Program and Timeline Attachment B Excerpt from Summary Description of Proposed Nodal Development Areas (June 1995) FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Allen Lowe Eugene Planning Division 99 West l0th Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 Phone: (541) 682-5113 E-Mail: allen.d.lowe~ci.eugene.or.us 5 Attachment A Nodal Development Implementation Two Year Work Program April 26, 2004 1. Planning Commission Program Adjustments Explanation During late spring and summer (2004), planning staff will initiate discussions with the Planning Commission aimed at redirecting the implementation of the Nodal Development program. Ma/or Tasks · Planning Commission tour node sites (May 24) · Review and discuss Two Year Implementation Work Program · Consider potential node map revisions. Remove some, add types, and change boundaries of a couple. (June) · Consider program name change (Nodal Development to Smart Growth or other) (June) Timeline: May- July, 2004 2. Develop Smart Growth/Nodal Development Education and Marketing Materials Explanation Develop education and marketing materials to expand general community awareness of smart growth/nodal development initiatives. The materials will enable city staff, elected officials, appointed officials, neighborhood and civic leaders to access smart growth/nodal development information in a variety of formats. Ma/or Tasks · Develop work program and communications plan for the project · Identify key audiences and stakeholders · Identify goals and objectives for program marketing · Identify necessary printed materials, presentations (Powerpoint), displays, workshops and feedback mechanisms for program marketing · Produce materials Timeline July- November, 2004 - 3. Amend Overlay Zone to correct identified problems Explanation In May, 2003 the City Council voted unanimously to initiate amendments to the/ND Nodal Development Overlay Zone regulations adopted in November, 2002. The Council motion reads as follows: Councilor Nathanson, seconded by Councilor Pape, moved to initiate amendments to the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone to address issues raised in the Planning Commission report dated April 8, 2003, and public testimony to allow infill and redevelopment to occur in a transitional manner consistent with neighborhood considerations, and with area-specific development histor~ and market conditions within each node. The Planning Commission should analyze the amendments for consistenc~; with TransPlan's nodal development policies and performance measures. The Planning Commission report identified contained three recommendations for amending the code: 1. Commercial Zone Requirements: Amend the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone to replace the FAR requirement for the commercial and industrial zones with a "menu" of standards, with a required minimum number of standards which must be met. FAR would be one of the standards on the "menu". 2. Residential Zone Requirements: Amend the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone to: a. Exclude residential development from 9.4270(3), which applies the/ND requirements to an expansion of 30% or more of the total existing building square footage on the development site; and b. Exclude residential zones from the standards in 9.4290(2) Building Setbacks and (3) Parking between Buildings and the Street to commercial and industrial zones. c. Exempt residentially zoned lots or development sites in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones that are developed and are 13,500 square feet or less in size from the minimum residential density requirements. 3. Adjustment Review: Amend Section 9.4250 Purpose of/ND Nodal Development overlay zone to expand the intent statement, currently limited to the residential density objective, to include the additional fundamental characteristics of nodal development to this section. These additional fundamental characteristics are: a. Design elements that result in pedestrian-friendly environments that support transit use, walking and bicycling; that promote a sense of _ community and that improve livability; b. A transit stop that is within walking distance (generally ¼ mile) of anywhere in the node; c. Mixed land uses that offer a variety of services, activities and destinations within easy, comfortable walking and biking distance of mo~t home~; d. Public spaces, such as parks and open ~paee, and other fadlitie~ that can be reached without driving. Ma/or Tasks: · Develop Request for Proposals · Develop specific work program for this task · Develop Citizen Involvement Program Include major outreach effort w/PowerPoint presentation and handouts Consider convening "task force" for one or two meetings to look at proposed changes or help craft them - principles from the 8 high priority nodes would be good. · Interview and hire consultant · Prepare draft code revisions · PC and Council Work Sessions and Public Hearings Timeline: September, 2004 - May, 2005 4. Status Report and Inventory of Potential Nodal Development Areas in Eugene Explanation This project will update the descriptions and boundaries of each potential nodal development area. Using that updated information, staff will meet with residents and property owners of each node to explain the nodal development/smart growth program and the meaning of the nodal designation. The project will stimulate early neighborhood involvement in establishing the direction for each node, establishing or confirming boundaries, and identifying issues that need to be addressed in order to achieve the goals for a specific node. Ma/or Tasks · Develop specific work program for this task · Produce current inventory of dwelling units, employment, acreage, MP designations, zoning, existing land uses, density, commercial FAR's. · Produce narrative description of each node with staff assumptions about improvements needed to achieve node goals. · Schedule resident/property owner meetings within nodes. · Compile report to Planning Commission. · Schedule Planning Commission work session. Timeline: July, 2004 through July, 2005 8 5. Chambers Residential and Commercial Infill Development Standards Project Explanation This project will build on earlier efforts to implement nodal development in an existing built-out neighborhood. Using the Chambers Node Development Plan as a foundation, the City will (1) identify regulatory barriers and gaps that impede the creation of high quality infill and redevelopment projects, and (2) develop a set of commercial' and a set of residential design standards to guide infill and redevelopment in this mature neighborhood. Thirty three of Eugene's 38 potential node sites are redevelopment (as opposed to "greenfield") sites. This project will address one of the main obstacles to implementation of the nodal development concept in Eugene. That obstacle is the inadequacy of the existing development codes to address the impacts of infill and redevelopment on surrounding development, and on the neighborhood as a whole. Major Tasks: · Develop specific work program for this task · Intergovernmental Relations Committee review · Prepare presentation on examples of neighborhood-scale infill and redevelopment projects · Identify community and City concerns with infill and redevelopment projects within the City of Eugene · Identify barriers and gaps that impeded infill and redevelopment · Prepare and conduct design preferences survey · Prepare draft commercial and residential development standards for infill and redevelopment · Test application of standards on hypothetical developments · Propose separate process for reviewing and approving infill and redevelopment projects within a node, if desired. · Prepare materials for PC work session and hearing Timeline: August, 2004 through December, 2005 6. Mixed Use Zoning Districts Explanation: Prepare and adopt appropriate mixed use zones to promote and encourage _smart development. Eugene has draft commercial and residential mixed use codes prepared for Royal and Chase Gardens nodal development projects that would ~erve az a baseline for Orafting n~w comprehensive codes. Work ~hould al~o include drafting a mixed u£e code for emplo~.e_n_( grCa~ lik~ the Campua Indua[rial zonc. 9 Ma_/or Tasks · Develop specific work program for this task · Research mixed use codes from other communities · Meet with interested parties to identify community and City concerns with mixed-use code development. · Create citizen-based task force to assist with development of codes · Prepare draft mixed-use development zoning codes for residential mixed use, commercial mixed use, and industrial mixed use development. · Prepare report to Planning Commission and City Council · Schedule Planning Commission work session and hearings · Schedule City Council work session and hearings. Timeline: July 2005 - June 2006 7. New Tools Explanation: Develop a set of new tools to complement exiting approaches to nodal development implementation. This project will focus on filling gaps in the existing program and increasing the City's flexibility to respond to a variety of circumstances and site conditions found in the City. It may be necessary to create new development review and approval tools depending on the answers to questions outlined below: a. To what extent should smart growth/nodal development principles be applied in future UGB expansion areas? b. Should a conceptual master plan be required for the whole UGB expansion site? c. Should the conceptual plan be based on nodal development or smart growth principles? d. How should new, previously unidentified nodes or smart growth centers will be identified, planned for and added to the map? e. Should the process be open to private developers and neighborhood groups? f. What criteria should be used to identify new node/smart growth center? g. Should compatibility standards or guidelines for infill and redevelopment be developed and applied to all nodal development/smart growth centers in the city?. h. Should the existing development review process be reviewed and new procedures explored to encourage flexibility and adaptability in node/smart growth area developments. i. Should the City explore a dual track design review process that allows developer to choose from two options: - Adherence to objective standards, or - Access to a more flexible design review process based on performance guidelines 10 Ma/or Tasks · Develop specific work program for this task · Audit City Smart Growth (Node) program and its components · Initiate community meetings or focus groups for input · Identify critical needs and missing program elements. · Research comprehensive smart growth programs in other cities · Produce preliminary report on identified needs for Planning Commission review · Develop draft tools · Prepare report to Planning Commission · Schedule PC and Council work sessions and public hearings as needed. Timeline: April 2005 - June, 2006 11 ATTACHMENT I -1 Nodal Development In Eugene Eugene is changing -- and growing. In the last decade, most Eugene residents have experienced the effects of growth and change in their daily lives. Traffic congestion has grown worse, vacant land and open space have disappeared as new homes and businesses are built; and residents express concerns about loss of community. As growth pressures have mounted in the community, many people have come together to explore new ways to accommodate growth while maintaining a sense &place and community. Out of these discussions, the concept of"nodal development" has emerged as a way to better achieve and balance transportation, growth management, and environmental protection goals. Nodal development emphasizes higher densities; mixed-land uses; human-scaled design; transportation options; neighborhood cohesiveness and convenience; and livability. By drawing on the best features of older neighborhoods and combining them with the best ideas of the present, we can choose a different style of development; one that revitalizes existing neighborhoods and creates quality new ones; one that limits sprawl and preserves natural resources; that makes travel more convenient and less time-consuming; and that creates a sense of community while building more attractive and functional neighborhoods. In Eugene, this approach is known as "nodal development". NodalDevelopmentDefined. The following definition of nodal development was recently adopted in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) by the elected officials of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County. I:~ ~$~ ~>~':5~ ~ '~ ; ~" ~ ~?~' ' ¢:~g~¢~!;~:~ ~:~'~ [~:~!i[~ ~ :~*~32~5 ~ ~!;::5~i~''' Z g~g~ ~ !i~ ~Z~ [i~[~[;~[55 ~[ ~ 'i~:i 2i 3 ~J~:~7~ > "[[}~3 ~5 [~[ ~:; i i~ 57[[~i ~ ~ ~: ' ii.~,,'. ;~?:~5 i:~>:~i~ii~i:':":i: ': "i~ :' :: ::~!::~i :: ::~ i ~ ~!~7~ ¢i i~[ }i~i, .......... ................... i ~::i:i:: :: ::: 5~ ~;[i [5 ?: i:::::: ~i~i:~ii}~i~ i~::i::~i:: [:'i i::i~ [ ~:: :' ~ i~: ~'::i g> ~':!:~" "' ~:'" ~' '-:' :: i2 ~ff&~ !43::}i:~ ~}::~}:~::i:~:: ~ :':: ::~ ~}: ~ ~ 5 :::~i ~:: ~i :'i~! ~dii~ ~¢'~ ~¢~ ~?~i~' ~ ........................... ....... i" ~.~}~ ~!i } g }~..i~~ii~'~ii }:r45..*.~*~:: C~i}[i ~i ~$~i~}. i~ What are the Essential Characteristics ora Node? · Design elements that result in pedestrian-friendly environments that support transit use, walldng and bicycling; that promote a sense of community, and that improve livability;, · A transit stop that is within walking distance (generally 1/4 mile) of anywhere in the node; - · Mixed land uses that offer a variety of services, activities and destinations within easy, comfortable walking and biking distance of most homes; · Public spaces, such as parks and open space, and other... public facilities that can be reached without driving; and · A mix of housing types and residential densities that achieve an overall net density of at least 12 dwelling units per net acre. Design Principles for Nodes Nodal developments will not all look the same. To be effective, nodal development concepts will ne6d to be adapted to the characteristics of the specific areas in which they are applied. Even so, implementation of the concept requires that certain principals be applied in all nodal development areas. Commercial Area Configuration.' Each node should have a conveniently located commercial area containing a mix of retail, office and other commercial services. The core commercial area should be located adjacent to a transit stop. The size and intensity of the commercial centers will vary to fit the existing neighborhood character and preferences of the people living and working there. Commercial Building Desi~ma and Sifing~ Commercial buildings should be designed to mimic a traditional "main street" development pattern, if possible. Buildings will be situated to define the street right-of-way including the pedestrian space, on-street parking and travel lanes, and will be brought up to the sidewalk edge to give merchants maximum visibility to pedestrians. The main entryway to commercial buildings will face streets, plazas or parks, not interior blocks or parking lots. Interconnected sidewalks will be provided to the commercial core from adjacent residential and employment areas to encourage walking. Building facades on the street will contain windows; expansive blank walls on the street will not be allowed. Commercial Parking Lots Parking lots for commercial uses should be located at the side and behind commercial buildings allowing the buildings, rather than parking lots, to dominate the street edge. Driveways to parking lots will be minimized in the commercial area to promote a safe pedestrian environment. Residential Densities Residential uses in all nodal development areas should achieve higher- than-average densities to provide a mix of housing types and to better support a viable retail center and transit system. Residential densities within nodes will achieve an overall net density of at least 12 dwelling units per net acre. Residential Building Desi~ma and Siting Public acceptance of nodal development requires that we address the compatibility of new residential development with existing development to assure privacy, safety and visual coherence. This can be achieved through similar massing of buildings; orientation of buildings to the street; the presence of doors, windows, porches and other architectural details, and efficient use of landscaping. Mixed Use Neighborhoods The nodal development concept combines many activities in the same area,: reversing the pattern of segregated land uses. In areas designated for mixed-use development within the node, a mixture of retail, service, education, office and residential uses can intermingle and support one another. Slre.~LD2,~ Street design throughout the node will reflect the intent to design for the pedestrian. New streets will be built with setback sidewalks and the sidewalk system will provide direct and safe routes to the commercial core from adjacent reSidential and mixed use areas. Wider sidewalks will be built where possible in commercial areas to allow room for window shopping, outdoor eating, and social interaction. The comers of most street intersections will be designed with curb extensions, wherever possible, to reduce crossing distances. Canopy trees will be planted within the street right-of-way throughout the node. Earkiag On-street parking will be provided on all streets within the node to separate pedestrians from moving traffic, reduce on-site parking demands, and to allow for quick-tumover parking in commercial areas. Commercial and multi-family parking lots will be located behind buildings or in the interior of a block wherever possible. Large surface parking lots will be broken into smaller lots and separated by streets and pedestrian walkways. Bicycle parking will be required in all commercial and multi-family developments. Pedestrian Comfort and Safety Traffic . should move at fairly slow speeds through the node to minimize the hazard to the pedestrian. The creation of a pedestrian environment dictates that automobile movements be controlled through street design. Street design in the node will reflect the desire to manage traffic speeds in commemial md residential~eas. Traffic can be calmed and pedestrian comfort increased in a variety of ways including provision of narrower streets, on-street parking, short block lengths, roundabouts, ' medians, chicanes, raised speed tables, and other techniques. Transit and Bike Circulation All nodes must be located on an existing or planned transit route, and must have a centrally-located transit stop, preferably within or adjacent to the commercial core. A coordinated system of striped bicycle lanes, on-street bicycle routes, and off-street bicycle paths (when possible) will be developed within the node. Bikeways should provide direct access from residential areas to the commercial core and to parks and schools. Bikeways should also be designed to provide a direct link to the existing bicycle system in adjacent areas and to other important destinations within the region. Parks and Public Spaces A variety of parks and public spaces should be provided within the node to serve area residents and workers. Many (but not all) of the proposed nodal development areas have existing or planned park or open space areas either within the node or adjacent to the node. Where parks and other public spaces do not exist, the creation of viable public spaces will be an emphasis of the nodal deVelopment plan. Significant open space areas adjacent to or within nodal development areaS, such as creeks, natural drainage channels, wetlands and forested areas, should be integrated into the overall design concept for the node, whenever possible. Infill and Redevelopment Many of the identified nodal development sites are within existing developed areas. Nodal development plans in these areas will focus on developing vacant and underused parcels to promote compact, higher-density development and to creme a greater mix and diversity of commercial services. All _ redevelopment and infill should respect the scale and character of the neighborhood, and site plans should integrate existing uses if possible. For more information or to schedule presentations on nodal development to neighborhood, civic and special interest groups contact Jan Childs, 682-5208; Allen Lowe 682-5113; or Kurt Yeiter, 682-8379 at the Eugene Planning and Development Department. mm~'~mm~ ATTACHMENT I -2 · ixed-Use Development in Eugene Frequently Asked Questions A publication of the City of Eugene Planning Division - "Connecting citizens to the vision of Eugene's future." Eugene is changing - and growing. In the last decade, most Eugene residents have experienced the effects of growth and change in their daily lives. Traffic congestion has grown worse, vacant land and open space have disappeared as new homes and business are built, housing prices have escalated and residents have expressed concerns about the loss of cOmmunity. As the costs and pressures associated with growth continue to mount, local residents have come together to explore new ways to accommodate growth while maintaining Eugene's special sense of place. Out of these discussions, the idea of "mixed-use development" - formerly known as "nodal development" - has emerged as a way to better ridesharing. Mixed-use centers concentrate population achieve and balance transportation, growth management and employment in locations with good transit service and environmental protection goals. The mixed-use and promote a mix of diverse and compatible activities. development concept addresses many of these problems The strategy encourages the design of pedestrian-friendly by focusing on "livability" as a guiding principle for public and private improvements. decisions affecting our future. The philosophy that drives the mixed-use development concept has also influenced other recent land use trends, including "new urbanism," nco-traditional design, traditional neighborhood development and transit- oriented development. While it is closely related to and incorporates elements of each of those approaches, the terms "mixed-Use development," or "mixed-use center," as used in Eugene, have a specific meaning. The essential characteristics of mixed-use developments are: What is "mixed-use development"? Mixed-use development is a land use strategy used to locate and create blended neighborhoods that are developed around a commercial core and located on a transit route. The mixed-use development strategy supports the creation of a balanced transportation system that includes automobiles, transit, walking, bicycling and · Design elements that support pedestrian- areas. It suggests that we subsidize the cost of providing friendly environments and encourage transit infrastructure or provide other incentives that support use, walking, and bicycling; that promote a sense higher-density, in-fill, mixed-use, and redevelopment of community, and thatimprove livability; projects. In short, the citizen's vision for Eugene, · A transit stop which is within walking supported by the recently-adopted Growth Management distance (generally ¼ mile) of anywhere in the Policies, inspires us to "grow up, not out." The vision development; urges us to manage our growth with some elegance · Mixed land uses that offer a variety of services, and with increased regard for the aesthetic, cultural, activities and destinations within easy, comfortable social and economic needs of Eugene's residents. The walking and biking distance of most homes; primary tool for bringing about this change in urban · Public spaces, such as parks, public and private form is the mixed-use development concept that would open space, and public facilities that can be be implemented in "mixed-use centers" distributed reached without driving; and, throughout '~'-~ Eugene S 6rban grow!h boundary (UGB). · A mix of housing types and residential densities / ,,,, f- ~ that achieve an overall net density of at least 12 '--~, ~ dwelling units per net acre. '--~d ~-<~ Eus~ne UGB The planned and cat~f~t!y controlled intensifie'htion of development in some s~'lect a-'ma_ s will l~ve many p Sitlve benefits for the city as a whole. Impl~mentation of the mixed-use development cc~'~cept Sill reduce pressure on the UGB, extending the lid'/of the current boundary; support the expansion of mass transit service; reduce the rate of growth in traffic congestion; and focus civic energies on the creation of numerous walkable and livable neighborhoods throughout the region. Why is implementation of mixed-use development important to Eugene? Eugeneans care deeply about quality of life issues. In 1998, Eugene residents validated a vision for Eugene's future that rejects sprawl -- encouraging instead, a higher-density, compact development form that efficiently utilizes vacant and under-used land. That vision supports City efforts to increase the amount and variety of parks and open spaces; promotes creation of a transportation-efficient land use pattern that encourages walking, bicycling and use of mass transit; and increases the density of new housing while protecting the character of existing neighborhoods. It prompts us to improve the appearance of buildings and landscapes and to protect and enhance the quality of our air, water and natural habitat Mixed-Use Development in Eugene: Frequently Asked Questions Page 2 Where will these mixed-use centersWhat types of mixed use centers be located? are there? Thirty-eight separate areas within Eugene's UGB The intensity of activity and scale of development will have been identified as potential mixed-use development vary from area to area in order to enhance the primary centers. They are distributed throughout the UGB; 33 .function of that area and maintain the character that of the 38 are within the current city limits while 5 lie already exists. In order to clarify function, mixed- use centers will be classified as primarily either outside the city limits but within the UGB - the area planned for future city expansion. The strategy will be neighborhood, commercial, or employment. Each center applied selectively on partially developed sites, sites will evolve as community and market forces dictate, with redevelopment or infill potential, and in new growth and all will support some combination of the three uses, areas, although some employment centers may not contain housing. Here is a brief, general explanation of each type of center: Potential Mixect Centers Legend r'---] Mixed Use Neighborhood Centers lll Mixed Use Employment Centers I Mixed Use Commercial Centers ~ Mixed Use Combined Commercial and Emplyment Centers m) m~m ~:~ Metro Urban Growth Boundary Mixed-Use Development in Eugene: Frequently Asked Questions Page 3 Mixed-Use Neighborhood Center centers are located on existing or planned transit routes The Neighborhood Center designation applies to areas where frequent service is provided or anticipated. that are primarily residential, but also include a mix of smaller-scale commercial uses that serve day-to-day Mixed-Use Employment Center needs of neighborhood residents. Commercial uses may The Employment Center designation applies to areas that include a child-care center, pharmacy, grocery store, contain concentrations of light industrial, office, and/or restaurant, offices, branch bank and similar services, institutional uses. These areas will include access for Housing densities and the scale and size of commercial people and freight movement, and a variety of services buildings will ensure a level of activity appropriate for for the employees who work, shop, and live in or near the a residential neighborhood. Standards for design of new center. Convenient services would be provided within developments will guarantee "fit" within the current easy walking distance so that employees and residents neighborhood, can take care of errands . '~ during the day ; without leaving the area. Most employment centers are located on existing or proposed transit routes that are planned for frequent transit service. Mixed-Use Commercial Center This designation applies to locations where concentrations of more intensive office, commercial, and higher-density residential development and significant amounts of employment exist and will likely increase. The size and level of activity of these centers varies HOW worotho$o aroa$ $o[oet ti? from relatively small areas that serve a limited area to Using an overlay mapping technique that identified major centers that serve the whole region. Commercial sites with positive attributes and eliminated sites with negative attributes, in the mid 1990's local planners worked with a 24-member citizen advisory committee to identify those areas that have the greatest potential for mixed-use development. Invariably, these are areas located along existing and planned transit routes that are currently planned for some level of-higher-density residential growth or higher-intensity employment. After eliminating areas with wetlands and other high- value natural resources, areas with topographic and natural or man-made barriers, areas with no access to existing or planned transit routes, and areas designated for heavy industrial development, the overlay process identified areas with all or most of the following characteristics: Mixed-Use Development in Eugene: Frequently Asked Questions Page 4 · Contains significant amounts of vacant or under- centers is about 4,245 acres, which represents about 12% developed land; of the total land area within the Eugene UGB. However, · Contains significant amounts of land with high not all areas identified as potential centers will ultimately redevelopment potential; be designated for mixed-use development. · Located on an existing, planned or easily extended transit line; · Contains designation and/or zoning for an existing or planned commercial area; · Contains tracts of land designated for medium and/or high density residential development; · Has an existing mixed-use character and/or pedestrian and transit-friendly character; Existing zoning or land use designation indicates high potential for higher employment densities. In 2002, the potential sites were acknowledged by the Eugene Planning Commission and Eugene City Council as the areas in which the mixed-use concept will initially be explored. How big are mixed-use centers? How quickly will mixed-use centers Mixed-use developments are designed, above all, to be walkable. All parts of a mixed-use development must be be built? within IA mile walking distance of the commercial core or transit stop that lie at the heart of the development. Mixed-use centers will evolve over time, each at their own pace, in response to city growth rates, economic Consequently, the largest mixed-use centers are conditions and infrastructure needs. Mixed-use approximately V2 mile from edge to edge, and generally are no larger than about 160 acres. Because a certain critical developments could occur as the result of a private mass is necessary to achieve the design and density goals sector initiative, or as a public-private partnership. In that create the mixed-use development character, these every case, mixed-use centers will develop according to principles of layout and design that allows them to centers should be no smaller than 25 or 30 acres. develop incrementally. All mixed-use centers will require Collectively, the area occupied by potential mixed-use some level of public infrastructure investment. In some areas, the infrastructure improvement may be all that is needed to support an existing or emerging mixed-use ,~ center. Some public infrastructure improvements - like ~ sidewalk construction or crosswalk placement - could happen quickly. Others - like acquiring land for a park, or a major street improvement - could take longer. :~' In others case~, the intensification and mixed-us~ character will emerge through the replacement of existing buildings (redevelopment) and filling in of vacant parcels (infilling). In still others, a new neighborhood will be built on undeveloped land. In these cases, the mixed- use neighborhood will materialize over a relatively long · period of time. Mixed-Use Development in Eugene: Frequently Asked Questions Page 5 Will all mixed-us c nters look the · Include a variety of small public parks or plazas within their boundaries, and whenever possible, same? connect with larger public open spaces at their edges. No two streets, neighborhoods, or centers will be identical. There is no one-s~ze-fits-all solution or pattern for mixed-use development. Although mixed- use areas will differ in their look, feel, and function, all '~:;~ mixed-use centers will: · Contain a variety of compatible uses and services ~' that reduce the need for travel outside of the area to satisfy basic needs. · Be developed at higher-than-average densities to support more frequent transit service and adequate commercial and service facilities. · Receive a higher level of public transit service to effectively connect these areas with each other and with other parts of the region. Is there a market demand for mixed- use development in Eugene? According to a local market demand study that analyzed a variety of local demographic and economic factors, there is a market for mixed-use development in Eugene. According to the study: · Population growth and shifting demographic trends will generate demand for new housing. Rising housing prices coupled with growing numbers of non-traditional households indicates · Be designed to make it easy, safe, and pleasant a demand for developments of higher densities for people to walk or bike from any part of the than traditional single-family development of mixed use area to its centrally located transit stop the recent past. · Commercial development will create new and commercial center, shopping and employment centers. Though these centers will continue to accommodate the automobile, there will be opportunities to change design and increase mixes of usesto reduce the number and length of automobile trips. · Commercial development will provide an opportunity to create new mixed-use centers. The challenge will be to build in a way that creates the necessary density, mix of uses, and pedestrian orientation while preserving the needed level of automobile access. Mixed-Use Development in Eugene: Frequently Asked Questions Page 6 · Public policy will strongly influence the · Look for opportunities to create concentrations marketability of mixed-use development, and patterns of development that can form the · There are uncertainties with this concept. Given nucleus of a mixed-use center. Once it starts to those uncertainties,, public policy should "do the develop through private investment, concentrate obvious and easy things first," including: public investment there. · .Reducing zoning code obstacles such as regulations that unnecessarily seperate diffent land uses and minimum lot size requirements. ObsOlete or incompatible building and design requirements will be changed so that new developments can What Is Mixed-Use Development accommodate a variety of functions. NO t · Not anti-automobile; it's about having · ~,-~ ~ ~ ,~.. ...... ~ transportation options - to drive, walk, bike or ~~ii 1~'~~lg~it~t{i i! iiii ~.,~ take public transit. · Not anti-suburb; it's about building better places to :~ ' ':' live. It's about protecting existing investments and livability in areas where people and communities have already made a commitment. · Not about big government; it's about improving market efficiency, encouraging construction on, and improvements upon the existing infrastructure. In this way we will get more value from the tax .~i~: dollars we spend on roads, sewers, and other taxpayer investments. · .Creating opportunities and providing incentives such as funding specific area development plans, targeted infrastructure investments, performance standards, public-private partnerships, and financial incentives. Mixed-Use Development in Eugene: Frequently Asked Questions Page 7 Eugeneans know there is a better way to grow. The result is both a new demand and a new opportunity for growth that emphasizes preservation of open space, greater choices in housing and transportation, increased convenience and accessibility, and stronger ne]'~hborhoods. With your constructive input as we move tbrward, ~i~ed-usk development will make Mixed-Use Development in Eugene: Frequently Asked Questions Page 8 .ma,~m-,[] .~ ATTACHMENT 1-3 /vXixed-Use Development in Eugene- Design Principles for More Livable Neighborhoods A publication of the City of Eugene Planning Division - "Connecting citizens to the viSion of Eugene's future." Overview Over the past 50 years, the built environment of most American cities has experienced a fundamental change. This change is characterized by separated, Single- use developments and a fragmented and disconnected street system typified by the dead-end cul-de-sac. The new American landscape is defined by stand-alone industrial and office parks, shopping centers, medical and apartment complexes, and low-density single-family tract developments. Much post-World War II commercial development is located in shopping malls away from housing and places of employment. Contemporary development practices, at their worst, produce isolated, homogenous, auto-dependent places that limit individual choice and have no relationship to their surrounding environments. The site layout and Mixed-use development emphasizes higher densities; design of buildings within the typical modem commercial, mixed land uses; human-scaled design; transportation industrial or residential complex contribute directly to theoptions; neighborhood cohesiveness and convenience; "loss of community" described by many residents of many and livability. By drawing on the best features of older cities- including Eugene. The consequences of this trend neighborhoods and combining them with the best 'i [~,~, il~ ideas of the present, we can choose a different style of · ' "!~ .... ',. t~ i.~ development; one that revitalizes existing neighborhoods [I~ and creates quality new ones; one that limits sprawl and preserves natural resources; that makes travel more  donvenient and less time-consuming; and that creates a ili sense of community while building more attractive and functional neighborhoods. - traffic congestion, degraded air and water quality, and - loss of community character - are evident everywhere. In reaction to these trends, the elected officials and citizens of Eugene have enthusiastically endorsed a strategy to manage Eugene's growth, improve the built environment, and promote livable neighborhoods. At the heart of this strategy is a concept to implement mixed-use development in select locations throughout the Eugene urban growth boundary. Design Principles provided to the commercial core from adjacent residential All mixed-use developments will not all look or function and employment areas to encourage walking. Building the same. To be effective, mixed-use development facades on the street will contain windows; expansive concepts will need to be adapted to the characteristics and blank walls on the street will not be allowed. needs of the specific areas in which they are applied. Even so, implementation of the concept requires that certain principles be applied in all mixed-use development areas. Commercial Parking Lots Parking lots for commercial uses should be located at the side and behind commercial buildings allowing the buildings, rather than parking lots, Mixed Use Neighborhoods Mixed-use development to dominate the street edge. Driveways to parking lots will combine many activities in the same area, reversing will be minimized in the commercial area to promote a the pattern of segregated land uses. In areas designated safe pedestrian environment. for mixed-use development, a mixture of retail, service, education, office and residential uses intermingle and Residential Densities Residential uses in all mixed-use support one another, development areas should provide a mix of housing types and help support a viable retail center and transit Commercial Area Configuration Each mixed-use center system. Residential densities within centers will achieve an overall net density of at least 12 dwelling units per should have a conveniently located .commercial area containing a mix of retail, office and other commercial acre. services. The core commercial area should be located adjacent to a transit stop. The size and intensity of the commercial centers will vary to fit the existing neighborhood character and preferences of the people living and working there. Commercial Building Design and Siting Commercial buildings should be designed to mimic a traditional "main street" development pattern, if Possible. Buildings will be situated to define the street right-of-way including the pedestrian space, on-street parking and travel lanes, and will be brought up to the sidewalk edge to give merchants maximum visibility to pedestrians. The main entryway to commercial buildings will face streets, plazas or parks, not interior blocks or parking lots. Interconnected sidewalks will be Mixed-Use Development in Eugene: Design Principles for More Livable Neighborhoods Page 2 Residential Building Design and Siting Public acceptance Pedestrian Comfort and Safety_' Traffic should move of mixed-use development requires that we address at fairly slow speeds through the mixed-use center the compatibility of new residential development with to minimize hazards to pedestrians. The creation of existing development to assure privacy, safety and visual a pedestrian environment dictates that automobile coherence. This can be achieved through similar massing movements be controlled through street design. Street of buildings; orientation of buildings to the street; the design will reduce traffic speeds in commercial and presence of doors, windows, and porches and other residential areas. Traffic can be calmed and pedestrian architectural details; and efficient use of landscaping, comfort increased in a variety of ways including provision of narrower streets, on-street parking, short Street Design Street design throughout the area will block lengths, roundabouts, medians, chicanes, raised reflect the intent to design for the pedestrian. New streets speed tables, and other techniques. will be built with setback sidewalks and will provide direct and safe routes to the commercial core from ..... ~ adjacent residential and mixed-use areas. Wider sidewalks will be built where possible in commercial areas to allow room for window shopping, outdoor eating, and social interaction. The corners of most street intersections will be designed with curb extensions, wherever possible, to reduce crossing distances. Canopy trees will be planted within the street right-of-way throughout the area. Transit and Bike Circulation All mixed-use centers must be located on an existing or planned transit route, and must have a centrally-located transit stop, preferably ,~; ii.ii~ ~ ~. within or adjacent to the commercial core. A coordinated · · ~'~ system of striped bicycle lanes, on-street bicycle routes, and off-street bicycle paths (when possible) will be Parking On-street parking will be provided on all streets within the mixed-use center to ,separate pedestrians from moving traffic, reduce on-site parking demands, and to allow for quick-turnover parking in commercial areas. Commercial and multi-family parking lots will be located behind buildings or in the interior of a block wherever possible. Large ?.u_ rface, parking lots will be broken into smaller lots and separated by streets and pedestrian walkways. Bicycle parking will be required in all commercial and multi-family developments. Mixed-Use Development in Eugene: Design Principles for More Livable Neighborhoods Page 3 developed within the center. Bikeways should provide to promote compact, higher-density development and direct access from residential areas to th~ commercial to create a greater mix and diversity of commercial core and to parks and schools. Bikeways should also services. All redevelopment and infill should respect the be designed to provide a direct link to the existing scale and character of the neighborhood, and site plans bicycle system in adjacent areas and to other important should integrate existing uses if possible. destinations within the region. Parks and Public Spaces A variety of parks and public spaces should be provided within the center to serve area residents and workers. Many (but not all) of the proposed mixed-use development areas have existing or planned park or open space areas either within or adjacent to the mixed-use center. Where parks and other public spaces do not exist, the creation of viable public spaces will be designed i~mixed-use development plans. Significant open space areas adjacent to or within mixed- use development areas, such as creeks, natural drainage channels, wetlands and forested areas should be integrated into the overall design of mixed-use centers whenever possible. ? lnfill and Redevelopment Many of the identified mixed- use development sites are within existing developed areas. Mixed-use development plans in these areas will focus on developing vacant and underused parcels Mixed-Use Development in Eugene: Design Principles for More Livable Neighborhoods Page 4 Mi×cd-Usc Legend ~ Mixed Use Commercial Centers ~ Mix~ U~e Combin~ Comme~ial and E~ment C~ ~ Mixed Use Re~ld~ Cents U~ro UGB m m ml N~b~ N~c ~A lC C~m~rs 3A G~ lB C~ R~d ~C W~w C~k ~m~t 3D W~ C~k 3F a~ ~ 3G ~rc~ 31 We~o~ud 4~ ~r ergs~ ~E G~ 5A 8p~g C~ SC S~ ~ra Squ~e 6~ VaH~ 6K ~se 0 I l 4