HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Initiating Code Amendment for Downtown-Related Zoning Regulations
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: Initiating Code Amendment for Downtown-Related Zoning Regulations
Meeting Date: September 12, 2005 Agenda Item Number: B
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Nan Laurence
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5340
ISSUE STATEMENT
A Downtown Plan implementation strategy calls for the creation of a single zone to unify the downtown
core and to support downtown development. This work session identifies the planning issues involved
in implementing this strategy to support desired downtown development and related Downtown Plan
policies. The action recommended is City Council initiation of a code amendment to address possible
changes to regulations affecting downtown.
BACKGROUND
This item was originally on the City Council Consent Calendar for July 18, 2005. As a result of City
Council action, it was taken off of the Consent Calendar and a work session was requested. As noted in
the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) for July 18, 2005, the Downtown Plan supports the evaluation of
zoning and code regulations for downtown in an effort to encourage desired development. The plan,
adopted by the council in April 2004, contains the following implementation strategy:
Create a single zone to unify the downtown core, including the new Federal Courthouse and
riverfront areas. Consider amendments to an existing commercial zone, such as C-2 or C-3, and
overlay zones such as /TD, /ND, and the Broadway Overlay Zone. (Page 14)
The concept of a downtown zoning district was first included in the Downtown Vision, approved by the
City Council in November, 2000. The vision included the following Key Next Step to support
downtown development:
Create a new zoning district for the downtown that promotes multi-story structures with mixed uses,
and emphasizes street-level activity along the Great Streets. Consider Design Review. (Page 9)
The Downtown Plan promotes a vision for a strong, active, distinctive urban center. Zoning, by itself,
does not induce downtown development or urban levels of activity. However, the zoning for downtown
plays an integral part in implementing the vision for downtown by restricting or allowing certain uses
and through requirements for how those uses are configured.
As part of the implementation of the Downtown Plan, the Planning Commission discussed a review of
relevant code regulations on May 10, 2004. The Planning Commission considered this item again on
November 15, 2004, and directed staff to work with the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050912\S050912B.doc
(ERAC). Staff met with ERAC five times between July 2004 and February 2005. On March 15, 2005,
staff met again with the Planning Commission to present issues and ideas highlighted by ERAC. The
Planning Commission expressed support for the general direction identified involving possible code
amendments to downtown-related regulations, with the understanding that further evaluation of these
topics was necessary.
The discussions at these public meetings were organized primarily around the following key questions:
1. Are the City’s zoning regulations for downtown aligned with Growth Management and Downtown
Plan Policies? In addition, are they easy to use, consistent and effective?
2. Are any changes required? If so, what direction should we be considered?
Based on the discussions held so far, it appears that most of the zoning regulations are working to
support the type of development desired downtown, and that an entirely new zone for downtown is
unnecessary. However, these discussions highlighted four areas where the City’s current zoning
regulations are difficult to use, conflict with adopted plans and policies regarding downtown, and
present a barrier to the type of development envisioned in the Downtown Plan. Specific issues
identified are outlined in the following discussion; solutions to address these issues will need to be
developed as part of the code amendment process.
1. C-2 Community Commercial
C-2 is the main commercial zone throughout the city, and is applied to approximately half of the
commercially zoned properties downtown. All properties zoned C-2 are required to have 60% of the
ground floor building street frontage in nonresidential use. Currently, the C-2 requirement cannot be
waived or modified through the Adjustment Review process.
While this requirement addresses the need to maintain commercial uses in areas zoned C-2, the
requirement was seen as overly prescriptive for property located downtown, and potentially
discouraging to residential development. Although commercial uses on the ground floor are desired,
the city currently has a substantial amount of vacant ground floor commercial space downtown. In
addition, adding nonresidential uses to a residential building changes building code requirements,
adding cost and complexity to the development.
2. C-3 Major Commercial
Approximately half of the commercially zoned property downtown is zoned C-3, Major
Commercial. Most of the properties zoned C-3 are in the Downtown Urban Renewal District, which
covers the commercial core of downtown. Surface parking within C-3 is limited to no more than 20
spaces. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that undeveloped land is not used for surface
parking lots in the core of downtown. It should be noted that little vacant land exists downtown that
is zoned C-3, so the practical impact of this regulation is limited, unless existing properties are
rezoned to C-3 or buildings are razed on property currently zoned C-3.
Two issues were identified with this regulation: 1) the role that surface parking plays as an interim
use; and 2) the need for surface parking for activities that are highly desirable downtown. As an
interim use, parking areas downtown can essentially function as a land banking strategy. For
example, the U.S. Bank building is an eight-story building located on half its development site, with
the other half currently used for parking. This parking lot allows for potential development in the
future, as land values increase and parking is no longer the highest and best use.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050912\S050912B.doc
Most of downtown is within a Parking Exempt area. Even so, many desired uses in the downtown area
are not feasible without convenient parking. These include uses such as movie theaters or anchor retail
as well as commercial office. The cost of structured parking is prohibitively expensive for all but the
largest projects. The availability of surface parking may be the deciding factor in allowing a downtown
development to go forward. Prohibiting more than 20 surface spaces may cause a desirable business to
locate elsewhere, outside of downtown.
3. /TD (Transit Oriented Development) Overlay
The /TD Overlay applies to most of the area within the Downtown Plan boundary, but not to the
Courthouse area, a portion of EWEB’s riverfront property, or properties facing Broadway between
Mill and Hilyard. The purpose of the /TD overlay is to support enhanced pedestrian activity, transit
access, a mix of uses, and an attractive streetscape.
Three issues were identified with the application of this overlay zone. First, the FAR or Floor Area
Ratio requirements, essentially the ratio of floor area to site area, could be an impediment to desired
development. For example, if a one-floor retail business such as the Pottery Barn or a movie theatre
were interested in building downtown, it might not meet the required FAR. Both examples often
have the desired mass and height but not the continuous coverage of a second floor. Second, the /TD
boundaries were identified as an issue, such as where this overlay was not applied to areas within
downtown, such as the Courthouse area, or applied to areas outside the Downtown Plan boundaries,
th
such as along Willamette Street south of 13 Avenue. In this location, the /TD regulations require a
downtown scale of development for an area outside of downtown, where residential and small scale
commercial uses predominate. Third, concerns were raised about the circumstances under which
adjustment review could be used to modify the required standards. Currently, this requirement can
be adjusted through an Adjustment Review process, but only under certain circumstances, including
no alley, or physical or legal constraints.
4. Bike Parking
The requirement for long-term bike parking supports the use of alternative modes for downtown, but
usually requires the use of potentially leasable space. Under the code, a typical bicycle parking
space requires 22 square feet (including the access aisle). A multi-family structure with 75 units
would require 75 spaces, all of which need to be long-term, covered spaces, an area equal to
approximately 1,300 square feet, assuming a double loaded aisle. These standards can be adjusted,
but typically not reduced. For a multi-family building in C-2, bike parking would not count towards
the required ground floor non-residential use.
Providing bike parking may also conflict with the FAR required. If bike parking spaces are provided
outside of a building front, these spaces would not contribute to the required FAR, although they are
a desired urban amenity.
In the numerous public discussions held so far, it appears that further review and possible changes to the
Land Use Code could work toward the objective of achieving a vibrant, active and densely developed
downtown. Revising the /TD overlay to serve as a Downtown Zoning District emerged as a possible
strategy to address issues identified so far, and to align the regulations affecting downtown. However,
no specific solutions or code language has been drafted to develop this strategy or to appraise it in a
public forum.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050912\S050912B.doc
Based on these discussions, staff recommends that City Council initiate a code amendment for
downtown-related regulations. This action will set in motion a series of public hearings, work sessions
and public workshops. This public process will effectively and comprehensively address issues
identified or overlooked so far, determine if a new or revised overlay district is needed to support
desired development downtown, and implement recommended solutions to more closely align the Land
Use Code with the desired future for downtown.
A work session has been scheduled with the Planning Commission for September 26, 2005, to present a
Citizen Involvement Plan for downtown-related zoning code revisions. Based on City Council action on
this item, the draft CIP will incorporate priorities and suggestions by the council.
Prompt action is recommended. The momentum for downtown development is growing, and significant
discussion of new projects is underway. Timely action to begin the dialogue on amending the Land Use
Code to include an appropriate overlay zoning district for downtown will help support and encourage
desired downtown development.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
Relevant Growth Management Policies include the following:
Policy 1 Support the existing Eugene Urban Growth Boundary by taking actions to increase
density and use existing vacant land and under-used land within the boundary more
efficiently.
Policy 2 Encourage in-fill, mixed-use, redevelopment, and higher density development.
Policy 3 Encourage a mix of businesses and residential uses downtown using incentives and
zoning.
The first three Growth Management Policies address the importance of compact development and
density. Policy 2 specifically encourages higher density development within existing development
areas. Policy 3 refers to the role of zoning in the effort to encourage desired development downtown.
Relevant Downtown Plan polices include the following:
Downtown development shall support the urban qualities of density, vitality, livability and
?
diversity to create a downtown, urban environment.
Stimulate multi-unit housing in the downtown core and on the edges of downtown for a variety of
?
income levels and ownership opportunities.
Facilitate dense development in the Courthouse area and other sites between the core of
?
downtown and the river.
Reinforce residential use in neighborhoods abutting the downtown commercial core to help
?
contain commercial activity in downtown and maintain the historic character and livability of
adjacent neighborhoods.
The Downtown Plan policies reinforce the commitment to emphasize downtown Eugene as a strong
regional center, and a diverse, dense, economically strong urban center. The first three policies above
specifically encourage the transformation of vacant and underutilized sites and the development of dense
commercial, residential, and cultural activities.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050912\S050912B.doc
The fourth policy above addresses the need to concentrate dense commercial activities in the downtown
core, rather than encouraging commercial activities to replace existing housing along the edges of
downtown. The strategy of creating a downtown overlay district speaks to this concern by focusing new
or revised regulations in the downtown core rather than in the surrounding neighborhoods as with the
existing /TD overlay.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The council can choose to initiate the code amendment, or decline to initiate the code amendment. The
council can also request additional information before deciding whether or not to initiate. If the council
chooses to initiate the code amendment, such an amendment is processed as a Type V application,
requiring public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council before action is taken by
the council to approve or deny the amendment.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the council initiate a code amendment to address possible code
revisions to more closely align the Land Use Code with the Downtown Plan.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Excerpt from Summary Minutes of Planning Commission meeting on March 14, 2005
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Nan Laurence
Telephone: 682-5340
Staff E-Mail: nan.laurence@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050912\S050912B.doc
ATTACHMENT A
E X E R P T F R O M S U M M A R Y M I N U T E S
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
th
Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10 Avenue
March 14, 2005
11:30 a.m.
PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth,
Anne Marie Levis, members; Mike Sullivan, Acting in Capacity for Tom Coyle, ex
officio member; Denny Braud, Nan Laurence, Mike McKerrow, Susan Muir, Steve
Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Phillip Carroll, Candace
Nelson, Kevin Matthews, Terry Connolly, Charles Biggs, guests.
ABSENT: Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, members.
III. DISCUSSION: DOWNTOWN ZONE UPDATE
Ms. Laurence reviewed the status of the Downtown Zone Update, noting that the Downtown Vision, and
Key Next Steps had been adopted by the City Council on April 9, 2001, and the Downtown Plan had been
adopted by the City Council on April 12, 2004.
Ms. Laurence said the concept for the project came from the Downtown Vision, with direction from the
Planning Commission to use the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) to review the
zoning issues effecting downtown in detail and return to the Planning Commission with
recommendations. Referring to a map entitled Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone, 1.0 and 2.0
Floor Area Ratios on the wall, she said a series of thoughtful discussions had occurred at the ERAC that
identified problem areas in four categories:
?
C-2 Community Commercial which required a non-residential ground floor component.
?
C-3 Major Commercial that required any surface parking over 20 spaces must be structured.
?
/TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay problems with the floor area ratio (FAR)
requirement, that presented difficulties in satisfying and making changes to the FAR, and general
lack of flexibility.
?
Bike Parking.
Ms. Laurence said in response to the issues identified, ERAC members recommended a strategy focused
on revising the existing /TD overlay to serve as a Downtown Overlay District. ERAC agreed that this
district should extend over the entire Downtown Plan area and recommended that the downtown Parking
Exempt area coincide with the Downtown Plan area.
The desired changes to the /TD overlay included provisions to address the issues identified and provide
desired flexibility for properties within the overlay district include:
MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 14, 2005 Page 1
1. Removing the requirement for nonresidential uses on the ground floor for properties
zoned C-2 within the Downtown Plan area.
2. Modifying the limitation on 20 surface spaces for downtown properties zoned C-3.
3. Reducing the FAR required, for both the 2.0 area and the 1.0 area.
4. Changing the criteria for modification of FAR requirements through the Adjustment
Review process, such as by allowing a taller first floor to count instead of FAR.
5. Revising the /TD boundaries to correspond with the Downtown Plan area.
6. Extending the Parking Exempt area to correspond with the Downtown Plan area.
7. Modify the code to allow for more flexibility in terms of meeting the bike parking
requirement.
8. Adding language within the revised /TD regulations which address the Great Streets
concept.
Ms. Levis was concerned with the lack of details in number three. She expressed concern that we
would not get what was desired, and would get more of what was not desired. She was concerned
that unintended consequences that occurred during the Land Use Code Update (LUCU)
discussions would not be adequately remedied, adding that the code often kept more desirable
development out.
Ms. Laurence said the ERAC conceded that it did not know what the right FAR was, but that
density, height and urban form appropriate for a downtown area was desirable. She said Mr.
Braud had provided information to the ERAC that explained the FAR philosophy for downtown.
Mr. Weinman said that loading zones and bicycle parking, among other uses, reduced the actual
size of the FAR.
Ms. Colbath said it was important to explicitly indicate what was desired versus analytically
applying a number to what was desirable, to prevent discouraging desirable development in the
future. She asked what type of financial and economic data was used by the ERAC to reach the
conclusions that the proposed changes would work for the size of Eugene’s downtown versus
what the future downtown would look like. She expressed concern that the Planning Commission
was responding to the current situation but not necessarily looking at what the situation will look
like 20 years out, and what the impacts of the kind of things that will occur over the next 20
years. She asked if other cities were contacted to help determine if both short and long term
changes would ultimately be beneficial.
Mr. Sullivan replied that the ERAC members represented a broad base of experienced
professionals who were drawn from private interests that own and develop property in cities, both
inside and outside of this region. Their direct experience with dealing with this specific set of
code requirements in this market was added to their experience in development in other markets
with other codes.
Ms. Laurence said ERAC members consisted of downtown property owners, downtown residents,
a member of the voter pool, and several developers.
Ms. Colbath was concerned about developing at lower densities that would prohibit higher
intensity development in the future knowing there was limited land downtown.
Mr. Lawless noted there were a number of other projects that went sideways in the past two or
three years due to the FAR requirements. He said there was a significant amount of land
MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 14, 2005 Page 2
available in the form of surface parking lots in C-3 zoned parcels acting as a land bank and
holding places. He asked if we were going to continue to set the bar higher than the market
would bear, and cross our fingers and hope development space would be preserved for 20 years,
essentially allowing the current potential opportunities to be lost. He was more interested in
examining the economy of holding places in surface parking lots than with maintain FAR
requirements that could result in lost opportunities in the urban core. He added that caution
should be used when setting artificial goals.
Mr. Hudspeth said he was uncomfortable amending the code to reduce the bicycle parking
requirement, noting that it would discourage bicycle use. He asked if the proposed code change
was related to amending the code for the proposed hospital at the current Eugene Water &
Electric Board (EWEB) site.
Ms. Laurence replied the only thing in terms of EWEB was that after the changes were made to
the /TD for downtown, the changes would be extended to the EWEB property so that EWEB
would also be covered by the /TD requirements. Currently, the fact that there was no alley on the
EWEB property that provided grounds for an adjustment review specifically on that property.
Approximately one-half of the EWEB property was included in the /TD. She added that ERAC
recommended flexibility in applying the bike parking standards.
Ms. Levis suggested that the code language be amended to provide for greater flexibility in
applying the bicycle parking requirement.
Mr. Sullivan said approximately 1,300 square feet of bicycle parking, the equivalent of a
residential unit, or a well configured commercial space, was required for the Aurora Building. He
asked if it would be possible to look at parking as a utility which was what the parking exempt
zone did, since those buildings do not need to provide vehicle parking. He asked if it would be
possible to incorporate bicycle parking into the same utility function, pulling it out of buildings
and into projects. He added it was a big financial and configuration issue for developers.
Ms. Colbath asked if property brought into the Riverfront would be parking exempt under the
proposed /TD adjustments. She also asked what the impact of taking away commercial use on
the ground floor and related foot traffic would be.
Ms. Laurence replied there was a map entitled Select Downtown Zoning on page III-9 of the
agenda packet that illustrated the current parking exempt areas, noting that one-half of EWEB
was already in the parking exempt area, and mirrored the /TD. She said there was an expressed
value that having more people living downtown was desirable, while at the same time, there were
ground floor commercial spaces that were not leased. She said having more people living
downtown was one way of bringing value and income and activity downtown. Referring to the
Great Streets concept, Ms. Laurence stressed requiring what you really want where you really
want it. There were areas downtown that had that requirement that were not in core of downtown,
but more of a neighborhood area at the edge of the core, where commercial uses, particularly at a
higher FAR, did not need to be required.
Ms. Colbath suggested making the requirement more flexible rather than an absolute value.
Mr. Lawless noted there was consensus that the proposal was generally the direction the Planning
Commission could support.
MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 14, 2005 Page 3
Ms. Levis asked Ms. Laurence to get comments from Planning Commissioner Rick Duncan who
was a member of ERAC.
Mr. Lawless adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:28 p.m.
(Recorded by Linda Henry)
m:\2005\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc050314.doc
MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 14, 2005 Page 4