HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: Ordinance on Chambers Special Area Zone
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: Ordinance Concerning Chambers Special Area Zone
Meeting Date: October 12, 2005 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Allen Lowe
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5113
ISSUE STATEMENT
This work session will introduce the Chambers Special Area Zone code amendments and overlay zone
developed to address compatibility issues in the proposed Chambers Mixed Use Center area. A public
hearing on this ordinance is scheduled for November 14, 2005.
BACKGROUND
On June 10, 2004, the City entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) to conduct a Transportation Growth Management (TGM)-related planning
project in the 81-acre Chambers Study Area. The Chambers Study Area is a mixed neighborhood with a
blend of single family detached homes, duplexes, apartments, businesses, and industrial developments.
The study area is largely defined by the ¼ mile “walkability” criterion for mixed use (nodal)
thth
development areas; the study area boundaries are 7 Avenue, Polk Street, 13 Avenue and Garfield
Street.
Previous planning efforts for this area in 1999 (Chambers Node Development Plan) and 2002
(Chambers /ND Overlay Zone) revealed a long-standing concern with City development standards by
residents of the area. Many residents perceived that the City’s development standards, particularly the
R-2 Medium Density Residential zone standards and multi-family development standards, were
responsible for new development that was incompatible with existing development and destructive to
neighborhood character. Many study area residents were skeptical of any increase of densities in the
neighborhood that did not address design issues and the impacts of new development on neighborhood
character and quality of life. This current project, known as Chambers Reconsidered, was initiated by the
City to focus on issues of compatibility, density limits, and transportation improvements suggested by the
1999 study. The consultant team included Rowell Brokaw Architecture, Ron Kellett from the University
of British Columbia, and transportation consultants PTV America. The project resulted in new infill and
redevelopment standards for residential and commercial buildings that should improve the quality of
new development, and recommendations for enhancements to various intersections that should result in
improved pedestrian conditions within the study area. The proposed standards reflect existing lot
patterns, create limits on the number of units that can be placed on lots, create a building envelope that
reflects predominant existing structural forms (including shorter building heights), create greater
allowances for alley access units, and establish lower height limits on commercial properties that abut
residential zones. While reducing the allowable density in the R-2 zoned area, the Mixed Use Center is
still projected to meet or exceed minimum density targets of the zone and Metro Plan.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051012\S051012A.doc
The Chambers Reconsidered project represents a neighborhood-specific, responsive approach to mixed
use development planning that concentrates on resolving issues that limit public acceptance of the
mixed use development concept. This project is noteworthy because of the amount of citizen action.
During the course of the study a core group of active residents, adopting the name Chambers Area
Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN), became instrumental in shaping the direction of the study
and the final product. The voluminous background information, much of it produced by CAFHN, will be
placed in the City Council Office for review.
The City has frequently asserted that each of Eugene’s 39 potential mixed use planning areas is unique
and that the planning objectives and outcomes should reflect the unique characteristics of those areas.
This project demonstrates that principle. When approving the project, the Planning Commission
majority noted that the proposed standards were crafted specifically for the Chambers area, and stressed
that these standards should not be viewed as a precedent for other residential areas or Mixed Use
Centers. It is also important to remember that this Chambers Reconsidered project addresses only a
small but important piece of the Mixed Use Center implementation puzzle. It will be necessary to revisit
issues of transit access, commercial design standards, and infill opportunities to achieve the full potential
of the Chambers Mixed Use Center.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 28, 2005, and a second, more interactive
hearing on July 26, 2005. On September 26, 2005, the commission recommended City Council
approval of the attached draft ordinance and transportation improvements.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
Mixed Use Centers, or Nodes, are an integral part of the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area’s growth
management strategy. Adopted policies support both the increased densities expected in the Mixed Use
Centers, as well as special attention to established neighborhood character, as reflected in the policies
below. The Chambers Reconsidered project attempted to find the appropriate balance in this specific
neighborhood.
Metro Plan and TransPlan Policies:
?
Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that have identified
potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use pattern.
?
Support application of the nodal development strategy in designated areas through information,
technical assistance, or incentives.
?
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.
?
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
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051012\S051012A.doc
incompatible development and adopt a schedule for completion of nodal plans and implementing
ordinances.
Metro Plan:
E.6. Local jurisdictions shall carefully evaluate their development regulations to ensure that
they address environmental design considerations, such as, but not limited to, safety, crime
prevention, aesthetics, and compatibility with existing and anticipated adjacent uses
(particularly considering high and medium density development locating adjacent to low
density residential).
A.9. Establish density ranges in local zoning and development regulations that are consistent with
the broad density categories of this plan. ***
*** Medium density: Over 10 through 20 dwelling units per gross acre (could translate to
over 14.28 units per net acre through 28.56 units per net acre depending on each
jurisdictions implementation measures and land use and development codes)
A.10. Promote higher residential density inside the UGB that utilizes existing infrastructure,
improves the efficiency of public services and facilities, and conserves rural resource lands
outside the UGB.
A.11. Generally locate higher density residential development near employment or commercial
services, in proximity to major transportation systems or within transportation-efficient
nodes.
A.13. Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by creating more opportunities
for effectively designed in-fill, redevelopment, and mixed use while considering impacts of
increased residential density on historic, existing and future neighborhoods.
A.14. Review local zoning and development regulations periodically to remove barriers to higher
density housing and to make provision for a full range of housing options.
Growth Management Study:
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 4 Improve the appearance of buildings and landscapes.
Policy 6 Increase density of new housing development while maintaining the character and
livability of individual neighborhoods.
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.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051012\S051012A.doc
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 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.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
No action is requested at this time. After the public hearing on November 14, 2005, the City Council
may approve the ordinance (as recommended by the Planning Commission), modify the ordinance or
findings before adoption, request additional information before acting, table the decision for an
indefinite period, or vote to not approve the ordinance.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable at this time.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Not applicable at this time.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Ordinance, including draft findings and map of study area
B. Proposed transportation improvements
C. Draft minutes of Planning Commission action, dated September 26, 2005
The record on this project is substantial, including a number of studies prepared by the consultants and
by the neighborhood group, CAFHN, as well as hundreds of pages of correspondence. A compilation of
the record will be placed in the City Council Office.
Examples of key works by the consultants and other background information are available on the web
site: www.eugeneplanning.org > Mixed Use Development > Mixed Use Projects.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Allen Lowe, Senior Planner
Telephone: 682-5113
Staff E-Mail: Allen.D.Lowe@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051012\S051012A.doc
Attachment A OfJ/16105
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A CHAMBERS
SPECIAL AREA ZONE; AMENDING SECTIONS 9.0500,
9.1030, 9.8030, AND 9.8865 OF THE EUGENE CODE,
1971; ADDING SECTIONS 9.3050 TO 9.3065 TO THAT
CODE; AMENDING THE EUGENE ZONING MAP;
ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The definitions of "Alley Access Lot/Parcel" and "Lot Coverage" in
Section 9.0500 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended, and a definition of "Dormer: is
added in alphabetical order therein, to provide:
9.0500 Definitions. As used in this land use code, unless the context requires
otherwise, the following words and phrases mean:
Alley Access Lot/Parcel. A lot or parcel abutting an alley and not abutting a
street. For purposes of EC 9.3050 through 9.3065, an alley access lot or
parcel is one that abuts an alley but does not abut a street.
Dormer. A window or ventilation opening set vertically on a sloping
roof. The dormer has its own roof, which may be flat, arched, or sloped.
A dormer mayor may not have its own sidewalls.
Lot Coverage. That portion of a lot which, when viewed directly from above,
would be covered by a building or structure, or any part thereof. except [afly
area covered by a building or structure where 50 percent or more of the
perimeter of the building or structure is open from grade] that the following
structures or parts of structures shall themselves not be included in
calculating lot coverage:
(A) Any part of a structure without a roof.
(B) Roof eaves.
(C) Carports, porches, and balconies that are open at least 50 percent
of their respective perimeter. The percentage calculation for
adjacent carports, porches, and balconies that are separated by a
common wall shall be determined individually for each carport,
porch, or balcony.
Ordinance. 1
09/16/05
Section 2. Section 9.1030 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by adding the
following in alphabetical order to the Table 9.1030 Special Area Zone listing:
9.1030 Establishmentand List of Zones. The zones listed in Table 9.1030 Zones
are established as follows:
Broad Zone Cate or
S ecial
Table 9.1030 Zones
Zone
Chambers S . ecial Area Zone
Section 3. The following caption and Sections 9.3050, 9.3055, 9.3060, and
9.3065, are added to the Eugene Code, 1971, to provide:
S..C Chambers Special Area Zone
9.3050 Purpose of S-C Chambers Special Area Zone. The S-C Chambers
Special Area zone is intended to:
(1) Protect and maintain healthy existing residential neighborhoods by
ensuring compatible design for infill development in terms of mass,
scale, orientation and setback to complement patterns in the
existing neighborhood;
(2) Promote a general increase in density with a mix of multi-family
and single family residential development that contributes
positively to the neighborhood pattern of single family detached
dwellings;
(3) Protect existing commercial businesses, encourage commercial
in fill, redevelopment and development with design standards that
support the neighborhood cohesiveness;
(4) Create transitions between higher intensity commercial land uses
and residential neighborhoods, in terms of building heights, set
backs and building facades;
(5) Establish, strengthen, and maintain a high quality urban
environment with compatible commercial, residential and industrial
use; and
(6) Create a pedestrian friendly environment.
9.3055 S- C Chambers Special Area Zone Siting Reauirements. In addition to
the approval criteria in EC 9.8865 Zone Change Approval Criteria, the
site must be included within the area depicted on Map 9.3055 S-C
Chambers Special Area Zone and subareas. When property is rezoned
to S-C, as part of the rezoning process, the city shall identify the
Ordinance - 2
09/16/05
subarea designation applicable to the property. Within the S*C
Chambers Special Area Zone, the three subareas are:
(1) S*C/R-1;
(2) S-C/R-2;
(3) S-C/C-2.
The applicable subareas shall be as shown on Map 9.3055 S-C
Chambers Special Area Zone, unless a different subarea designation is
found to be consistent with EC 9.3050 PurIJose of S-C Chambers Special
Area Zone.
9.3060 S-C Chambers Special Area Zone - Land Use and Permit ReQuirements
and Special Use Limitations. Except where the standards in EC 9.3065
S-C Chambers Special Area Zone Development Standards specifically
provide otherwise:
(1) The land use and permit requirements and special use limitations
applicable in the S-C/R-1 subarea shall be those set out at EC
9.2740 and EC 9.2741 for uses in the R-1 zone.
(2) The land use and permit requirements and special use limitations
applicable in the S-C/R-2 subarea shall be those set out at EC
9.2740 and EC 9.2741 for uses in the R-2 zone.
(3) The land use and permit requirements and special use limitations
applicable in the S-C/C*2 subarea shall be those set out at EC
9.2160 and EC 9.2161 for uses in the C-2 zone.
9.3065 S-C Chambers Special Area Zone - Development Standards.
(1) Application of Standards. The standards in this section 9.3065
apply to uses and development established within the S-C Chambers
Special Area Zone after [insert date of adoption of ordinance). As used
in this section, uresidential building" means a building containing one
or more dwellings. In the event of a conflict between other provisions of
this code and the provisions of this section, the specific provisions of
this section 9.3065 shall control.
(2) Development Standards Applicable in the S*C/R-1 Subarea. Except
as provided in this subsection, the development standards
applicable in the S-C/R-1 Subarea shall be those set forth in EC
9.2750 to EC 9.2777 for the R-1 zone, Special Development
Standards for Certain Uses in EC 9.5000 through EC 9.5850, and the
General Standards for all Development in EC 9.6000 through
9.6885.
(a) Lot Size Minimums for FlaQ Lots. In lieu of any conflicting
provisions in EC 9.2750 to 9.2777 for flag lots in the R-1 zone,
the following standards apply for flag lots in the S-C/R-1
subarea:
Ordinance.. 3
09116105
1. Single dwellings and attached secondary dwellings:
minimum lot size 4,500 square feet.
2. Detached secondary dwellings: minimum lot size 6,000
square feet.
3. The original lot, prior to creation of the flag lot, is not
subject to the R-1 minimum lot size of 13,500 square feet.
In calculating the lot area, only the flag portion of the lot
(exclusive of the pole) is counted.
(b) Detached Secondary Dwellinas. In lieu of conflicting
provisions in EC 9.2750 to 9.2777 for secondary dwellings in
the R~1 zone, in the S-CIR-1 subarea:
1. Detached secondary dwellings are permitted on alley
access lots and flag lots.
2. Building heights for all detached secondary dwellings
shall not exceed 20 feet.
3. A pedestrian walkway from the street or alley to the
primary entrance of the detached secondary dwelling is
not required.
(c) Alley O"en Space. In lieu of conflicting provisions in this code
regulating alley open space, the following standards apply to
a/l development in the S-C/R~1 subarea having a residential
building that is accessed from an alley:
1. An open space area of at least 400 square feet is required.
Except as provided in 2. below, the open space area shall
abut the alley on at least 25% of the lot width at the alley
property lille, be a minimum of 10 feet in depth at the alley
property line, and may include areas within setbacks. See
Figure 9.3065(2)(c) 1., Alley Open Space.
2. Alley open space required in 1. above may be placed
behind parallel parking on the lot. See Figure
9. 3065(2)(c) 1.
(3) Development Standards Applicable in S-C/R~2 Subarea. Except as
provided in this subsection, the development standards applicable
in the S-CIR-2 subarea shall be those set out in EC 9.2750 to 9.2777
for the R-2 zone, Special Development Standards for Certain Uses
in EC 9.5000 through EC 9.5850, and the General Standards for all
Development in EC 9.6000 through 9.6885.
(a) Density Standards. In lieu of the density standards for the R-2
zone in Table 9.2750 and EC 9.2750(1), there is no minimum
density requirement regardless of lot size, and the following
maximum density standards apply:
1. For lots with street access:
a. One dwelling unit if the lot area is less than or equal
to 4,500 square feet.
Ordinance - 4
09/16/05
b. Two dwelling units if the lot area is greater than 4,500
square feet and less than or equal to 9,200 square
feet.
c. Three dwelling units if the lot area is greater than
9,200 square feet
2. For alley access lots: One dwelling unit regardless of lot
size.
(b) BuildinQ Setbacks. In lieu of the setback standards for the R-2
zone in Table 9.2750 and EC 9.2751, the following setback
requirements apply:
1. Front Yard Setbacks.
a. Alley access only lots have no front yard setback
requirement
b. Residential buildings not on an alley access lot:
(1) Minimum setback: Except as allowed by EC
9.6745 Setbacks-Intrusions Permitted, all
residential buildings shall be set back a
minimum of 10 feet from front lot lines.
(2) Maximum setback: At least 1 residential
building shall have its main facade within 25 feet
of the front lot line the fai)ade faces. An
adjustment to this standard may be made based
on the criteria in EC 9.8030 (2) and (21)(a).
c. Garages and accessory buildings not on an alley
access lot. Garages and accessory buildings shall
be set back a minimum of 18 feet from the front lot
lines and a minimum of 6 feet behind the street-
facing facade of the residential building closest to
the street it faces.
2. Interior Yard Setbacks. Except as provided in d through f
of this subparagraph:
a. The interior yard set back from a lot line adjacent to
an alley shall be 5 feet.
b. An interior yard setback, or a segment of an interior
yard setback for a lot with street access where the
interior yard setback is not adjacent to an alley, and
where all points on the interior lot line, or segment of
lot line to which the setback applies are located
within 60 feet of a front lot line that is perpendicular
to the side of the lot along which the interior lot line
lies shall be 5 feet from the interior lot line and a
minimum of 10 feet from structures on other lots. In
addition, at a point that is 12 feet above grade, the
setback shall slope at the rate of 10 inches vertically
for every 12 inches horizontally (approximately 50
degrees from vertical) away from the lot line. See
Ordinance ~ 5
09/16/05
Figure 9.3065(3)(b)2.b., Interior Yard Setbacks
(Front).
c. All other interior yard setbacks, or segments of
interior yard setbacks, not covered in subparagraphs
a. and b., shall be at least 5 feet from the interior lot
line and a minimum of 10 feet from structures on
other lots. In addition, at a point that is 8 feet above
grade, the setback shall slope at the rate of 10 inches
vertically for every 12 inches horizontally
(approximately 50 degrees from vertical) away from
the lot line. See Figure 9.3065(3)(b)2.c., Interior Yard
Setbacks (Rear).
d. All intrusions aI/owed by EC 9.6745 (USetbacks-
Intrusions Permitted'7, and not explicitly covered by
other provisions of this special area zone standard,
are allowed.
e. On a lot with street access, a residential building with
a main roof ridgeline parallel to the front lot line may
have a single gable or hipped portion on each side of
the structure intrude into the sloped portion of the
interior yard setback, as long as the entire intrusion
is within 60 feet of the front lot line and the maximum
width of the part of the structure that penetrates the
sloped setback is 35 feet. For lots with more than 1
front lot line (e.g. corner lots) the 60 foot distance
shall be measured from the shortest front Jot line.
See Figure 9.3065(3)(b)2.e., Interior Yard Setbacks
(Intrusions).
f. A residential building may have a maximum of 4
dormers, with a maximum of 2 dormers per side of
the roof, that intrude into the sloped portion of an
interior yard setback, as long as each dormer that
intrudes on the setback meets the following
requirements:
(1) Has a minimum setback of 5 feet from interior lot
lines and is a minimum of 10 feet from
structures on other lots.
(2) Maximum width.
(a) There is no maximum width for a dormer
that has an end (face) wall that does not
face a street and is setback at least 30 feet
from the nearest lot line the end wall faces.
(b) The maximum width for all other dormers
that intrude into the setback is 10 feet
measured between the sidewalls or
Ordinance - 6
Ordinance. 7
09/16/05
maximum roof opening, whichever is
greater.
(3) The dormer's sidewalls (if any) are setback
a minimum of 2 feet from the nearest
parallel outer wall of the main structure to
which the dormer is attached. See Figure
9.3065(3)(b)2.f., Interior Yard Setbacks
(Dormers).
g. Standards in this subsection 2. may be adjusted if
consistent with the criteria of EC 9.8030(21 )(b).
3. Window Setback Above First Floor. Windows above the
first floor shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from
interior lot lines that are not adjacent to an alley.
Windows that are within 60 feet of the front lot line of a lot
with street access, and that are in a gable end of a
residential building with a main roof ridgeline parallel to
the front lot line are excluded from this setback
requirement. For lots with more than 1 front lot line (e.g.
corner lots) the 60 foot distance shall be measured from
the shortest front lot line. See Figure 9.3065(3)(b)3.,
Interior Yard Setbacks (Windows).
(c) Building Height. In lieu of the building height standards for the
R-2 zone in Table 9.2750 and EC 9.2751, the following apply:
1. For lots with street access:
a. The maximum height of any part of a residential
building within 60 feet of the front lot line is 27 feet
For lots with more than 1 front lot line (e.g. corner
lots) the 60 foot distance shall be measured from the
shortest front lot line. Adjustments to the standard
in this subsection (c)1.a may be made based on the
criteria of EC 9.8030(21 )(c).
b. The maximum height of any part of a residential
building other than within the area specified by
subparagraph a. is 18 feet
c. The maximum height of any part of a garage or
accessory building is 18 feet.
2. For alley access lots, the maximum height of any part of
any type of structure is 18 feet
3. The height of any part of a structure shall be measured as
its distance above grade.
4. Chimneys on residential buildings may exceed the
maximum height limits by no more than 5 feet.
(d) Residential Buildina Standards. In lieu of conflicting
development standards in this code for residential buildings
within the R-2 zone, residential development shall comply with
the following standards:
09/16/05
1. All roof surfaces on residential buildings over 200 square
feet, other than as provided for porches and dormers in
subparagraphs a. and b., shall have a minimum slope of 6
inches vertically for every 12 inches horizontally unless
adjusted based on the criteria of EC 9.8030(21)(d), and a
maximum slope of 12 inches vertically for every 12 inches
horizontally.
a. Dormers meeting the following criteria have no
minimum roof slope requirement:
(1) Dormers less than 10 feet wide, as measured
between sidewalls or maximum roof opening,
whichever is greater.
(2) Dormers on the rear (i.e" the side opposite the
street the residential building faces) of the
residential building closest to the street.
b. Residential building porches meeting the following
criteria have no minimum roof slope requirement:
(1) Porches less than 100 square feet.
(2) Porches on the rear (i.e" the side opposite the
street the residential building faces) of the
residential building closest to the street.
2. Front Entries.
a. The residential building closest to the street shall
include a main entry oriented to and visible from the
street.
b. On corner lots with multiple residential buildings, all
residential buildings shall include a main entry
oriented to and visible from a street.
(e) Gara~e and Accessory BuiJdinas Standards. In lieu of
conflicting standards in this code applicable to garage and
accessory buildings within the R.2 zone, the fol/owing
standards apply:
1. Garage door widths.
a. Except for a garage oriented to an alley, only 1
garage door, with maximum width of 9 feet and
maximum height of 8 feet, is allowed within 30 feet of
the front lot line.
b. For a garage oriented to an aJley, 1 garage door 18
feet wide and 8 feet high or 2 garage doors 9 feet
wide and 8 feet high, are permitted.
2. Accessory buildings over 200 square feet in area shall
have a minimum roof pitch of 6 inches vertically for every
12 inches horizontally.
(f) Driveway Standards. In lieu of conflicting standards in this
code applicable to driveway and curb. cut requirements within
the R..2 zone, the fol/owing standards apply:
Ordinance - 8
09/16/05
1. Street Access Driveway Width.
a. The maximum driveway width for a single-car garage
is 13 feet.
b. No driveway shall be wider than 13 feet within 30 feet
of the front property line.
c. The maximum curb cut width is limited to 13 feet for
each lot
d. If a driveway is to be located adjacent to an existing
driveway on adjacent property, the maximum shared
driveway width shall be 24 feet
Walkways adjacent to a driveway shall be included in
calculating the driveway width.
2. Alley Access Driveway Width. The maximum driveway
width is 20 feet within the first 30 feet of the alley property
line.
3. Adjustment. The driveway width standards in this
subsection (t) may be adjusted based on the criteria of EC
9.8030(21)(e).
(g) Allev Open Space. In lieu of conflicting provisions in this code
regulating alley open space, the following standards apply to
all development in the S-C/R-2 subarea having a residential
building that is accessed from an alley:
1. An open space area of at least 400 square feet is required.
Except as provided in 2. below, the open space area shall
abut the alley on at least 25% of the lot width at the alley
property line, be a minimum of 10 feet in depth at the alley
property line, and may include areas within setbacks. See
Figure 9.3065(2)(c)1., Alley Open Space.
2. Alley open space required in 1. above may be placed
behind parallel parking on the lot. See Figure
9.3065(2)(c)1..
(h) Lot Standards. In lieu of conflicting lot standards for the R-2
zone in Table 9.2760 and EC 9.2761 Special Standards for
Table 9.2760, the following minimum standards apply to all
new lots created after [date of adoption] or requests for
adjustments to existing lots that are submitted after that date:
1. Minimum lot frontage: 45 feet. For alley access lots, lot
frontage is that portion abutting the alley.
2. Minimum lot width on street or alley: 45 feet.
3. Minimum lot depth (interior yard): 45 feet.
4. Maximum lot size: 13,500 square feet.
5. Alley access lots are permitted, subject to the
development standards of this section.
6. Flag lots are not permitted.
7. The following special/imitations shall apply:
Ordinance - 9
09/16/05
a. Lot Aggregation: 2 or more lots or parcels shall not
be combined or reconfigured such that the resulting
number of lots or parcels is reduced. This
requirement includes, but is not limited to partition or
subdivision replats and property line adjustments.
b. Property line adjustments: Property lines may be
adjusted up to 5 feet, measured perpendicularly from
the existing property line, provided that all other
provisions of this section and EC 9.8400 through EC
9.8420, Property Line Adjustments, have been met.
(i) Ad/acent Lot Development Developments that span 2 or more
adjacent lots must meet standards for each individual lot (e.g.
density, setbacks, etc.).
lj) Vehicle Use Area. The total vehicle use area shall not exceed
20 percent of the lot size.
(4) Development Standards Applicable in the S-CIC.2 Subarea. Except
as provided in this subsection, the development standards
applicable in the S-C/C-2 subarea shall be those set forth in EC
9.2170 to 9.2181 for the C-2 zone, Special Development Standards
for Certain Uses in EC 9.5000 through EC 9.5850, and the General
Standards for all Development in EC 9.6000 through 9.6995.
(a) Street Facades. Ground floor facades that are 15 feet or closer
to the front property line shall have windows, arcades,
colonnades, display windows, entry areas, awnings, canopies
or other similar features along no less than 50% of their
horizontal length.
(b) Hei~ht Limitation. No portion of a building located within 50
feet of a residential zone shall exceed the maximum height in
that residential zone's or overlay zone's accessory building
height limit.
Section 4. A new Subsection (21) is added to Section 9.8030 of the Eugene
Code, 1971. to provide:
9.8030 Adiustment Review - Approva.1 Criteria. The planning director shall
approve, conditionally approve, or deny an adjustment review application.
Approval or conditional approval shall be based on compliance with the
following applicable criteria.
(21) S-C Chambers Special Area Zone. The following standards
applicable within the S..C Chambers Special Area Zone may be
adjusted upon a finding that the adjustment is consistent with the
criteria of subparagraphs (a) through (e). In all cases, proposed
Ordinance" 10
09/16/05
adjustments to the standard shall be the minimum necessary to
implement the development proposal:
(a) Residential Building Maximum Front Yard Setback. The
maximum front yard setback for residential buildings as
established in EC 9.3065(3)(b)1.b.(2) may be adjusted if the
proposed setback adjustment is consistent with the overall
front yard setback pattern of the neighborhood, particularly
with existing dwellings on both sides of the front yard and
within the immediate block.
(b) Interior Yard Setbacks. An adjustment may be granted to the
interior yard setback requirements of EC 9.3065(3)(b)2. if the
proposed adjustment is consistent with the purpose of EC
9.3050 and is necessary for development on a constrained
site. However, in no case is an interior yard setback allowed
that is less than 5 feet from the interior lot line or less than 10
feet from structures on other lots.
(c) Building Height. The building height standards of EC
9.3065(3)(c)1.a. for residential buildings within 60 feet of the
street may be increased to a height of up to 30 feet if the
applicant can demonstrate that the requested adjustment
meets the following criteria:
1. The proposed dwelling is shown to be compatible with
other dwellings in the immediate vicinity, in terms of
scale, mass and setbacks.
2. The additional height will not adversely impact the
immediate neighbor's privacy, considering backyard
privacy, location of second story windows facing adjacent
yards and dwellings, etc.
3. Constraints on the property necessitate the adjustment in
height, with consideration being given to protecting
existing mature trees, lot configuration, and existing
structures on site.
(d) Roof Pitch. The minimum roof pitch standard of EC
9.3065(3)(d)1. may be adjusted if the proposed adjustment
conforms with prevailing neighborhood context of roof pitch
and articulated roof massing. The applicant shall submit
examples of other roof forms in the immediate vicinity with the
adjustment application.
(e) Drivewav Standards. An adjustment to the driveway width
standards of EC 9.3065(3)(f) may be granted if the proposed
adjustment is necessary for development on a constrained site
taking into consideration unique situations such as existing
structures on the lot, joint driveway access, and existing
mature landscaping.
Ordinance - 11
09/16/05
Section 5. Subsection (4) of Section 9.8865 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is
amended by adding a new subparagraph (g) thereto, and relettering the current
subparagraphs (g) through (p) to (h) through (q), to provide:
9.8865 Zone Change Approval Criteria. Approval of a zone change application,
induding the designation of an overlay zone, shall not be approved unless it
meets all of the following criteria:
(4) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting
requirements set out for the specific zone in:
(g) EC 9.3055 $.C Chambers Soecial Area Zone Sitina
Requirements.
(ijh) EC 9.3105 S-CN Chase Node Special Area Zone Siting
Requirements.
(ru) EC 9.3205 S-DW Downtown Westside Special Area Zone Siting
Reguirements.
OJ) EC 9.3305 S-E Elmira Road Special Area Zone Siting
Requirements.
Uk) EC 9.3705 S-RP Riverfront Park Special Area Zone Siting
Requirements.
(kl) EC 9.3805 S-RN Royal Node Special Area Zone Siting
Requirements.
(lm) EC 9.3905 S-W Whiteaker Special Area Zone SitinQ
Requirements.
(mn) EC 9.4205/EC East Campus Overlay Zone SitinQ Requirements.
(flO) EC 9.4715 /wP Waterside Protection Overlay Zone SitinQ
Requirements.
(ep) EC 9.4815 /WB Wetland Buffer Overlav Zone Sitin~
Requirements.
(f}q) An uncodified ordinance establishing a site specific S-H Historic
Special Area Zone, a copy of which is maintained at the city's
planning and development department.
Section 6. Map 9.3055, S-C Chambers Special Area Zone, and Figures
9.3065(2)(b)1., Alley Open Space, 9.3065(3)(b)2.b., Interior Yard Setbacks (Front),
9.3065(3)(b)2.c. Interior Yard Setbacks (Rear, 9.3065(3)((b)2.e. Interior Yard Setbacks
(Intrusions), 9.3065(3)(b)2,f. Interior Yard Setbacks (Dormers), and 9.3065(3){b)3.,
Ordinance - 12
09/16/05
Interior Yard Setbacks (Windows), as referenced in this Ordinance are attached hereto,
to be numerically incorporated in Chapter 9 ofthe Eugene Code, 1971.
Section 7. The Legislative Findings set forth in the attached Exhibit A serve as
support for this ordinance, but are not adopted.
Section 8. The Eugene Zoning Map is amended to remove the existing zones
from the properties identified on Exhibit B attached hereto and to replace those zones
with the S-C Chambers Special Area Zone.
Section 9. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the
City Attomey. is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained
herein or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971, to the provisions added,
amended or repealed herein.
Section 10. If any section. subsection. sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and such holding shalt not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof.
Section 11. Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in the
Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of
its passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, or upon the date of its
acknowledgment as provided by ORS 197.625, whichever is later.
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
_ day of l 2005 _ day of l 2005
City Recorder
Mayor
Ordinance ~ 13
Ma p 9.3055
S-( Chambers Special Area Zone and Subareas
.....v ".
....
.....j.6t11A',e'
, ...
" ,...
'( f....... ,........
..... 7th Ave
:'
,
.'bi'
.'
:.. .....
.""'" ','"
'.. .
,
:
'.. .:
, :..
,
~
&h Ave []J]j tftf
f. q Ij
J J T
! !;..( I
.
, T= l I
.1' J I
........,
~
,...,.:,
:.....
-
-
I
f--
I
,....
,
IJ
...
.1 j I
If j f f;J,:n to, b
II !
II
il
J-
r--
r
........
nth
!~
1..[,. , Q:
I.: ..........);;
.'.... .....,G
'.. :l<thAve
.... "'. .
:Vi
:l{l
1 ':!th ^,,'"
"... . V)
....
".......
. .
, :!~i..
...........v
........
.......
....,.....
.
14th Avp
.;
"
: ".
.'
,..
C Chambers Special Area Zone Boundary
1~.lR;..I' Low Density Residential
t:::I.:~Gll.;I:::::1 Medium Density Residential
11111....................... .
__ Community Commercial
....
::"::e,
:::
......
f-
f--
~n-
......:
..:;
, .....
......
.'...
....
. .
,..:..
.
.......
, .
. ...
.....,... ..
.. .
,..
:::;,....,
......
..... .
......
: ..01
.'.......::~...::.
.
........
--
...
Figure
9.3065(2)(c)1
Alley Open Space
I~
5,_~;~::::r:r--"-----J \r-----~--------n=:~;:~"
Interlor 'I I i I' Interior
Setback : : Setback
, : i
~
I
',: .
_~n_ _ .s.-~
= oS! ltS
9 ~~D
o ~2~
_ J~~~y~:-~tD~~~ll:' .'1~1=- :tJi~W
i : \ ! 9>
,,__l.~ ____._.___._.\-~~~
~- 56'.0" Property WIdth "_U~
EXAMPLE A \
\
\
\
\
\
Required _.V
Open Space ~
>=400 SF ~
~"-...
i\
5"0,,_J=ru~--u-nl v--n----~~;~~H
Interior ',I! I Interior
Setback : : Setback
i i i
i 1 i
i i
i i
i !
I
,t.20'-O"
, - Driveway
i=' Width
o T 0 _ . - - 56,~7prop~rty Width
/ EXAMPLE a
-f\r-------r=:c5'oOll
I I' Interior
: Setback
. .
i I
r+ti
"; -J 1:1'
-.-.._~~-.-
>:ID..:. :;:.
,..,'.-.--k\ 'i
.:.:L';_):-:
+\;h~~tr::t.
"-="'1 ::.!;
',..,'tr^':~rit 9@2
;';'; ":1 ~^ (I)""
<<. .. ,> Il4J.,..... (1)
ii' : hlEw
-."ElJ ',' ..
'cJ~",t
-_.""_.._.._.,~ ~-
I: ~ I I"
-/.'------- - -14'.0" (:) >-
_. _. + . ~ 25% 01"" W~'~__fi~
56'-0" Property Width---.---,f
EXAMPLE C
~--....
5'-O"-m--lJ
Interior ' !
Setback' i
'I
:
.
Figure
9.3065(3)(b)2.b
Interior Yard Setbacks
(Front)
UJ
z
::i
Iw
'Z
l::i
.)-
f~
lW
10...
,0
Ilt
!
J
12' (WITHIN 60' OF STREH PROPERTY LINE.)
INTERIOR YARD SETBACK
FRONT SECTION I ELEVATION DIAGRAM
.,.~
....'- I '-
.,..../' . .,-' I"
.,.' ~~< I'
fJII/Il.JII/I*'" ~,tI'/",,\, I ~,
fII\'- ,y'~" ...." .........+--.... ....,
\ ::,'.<:,.\. ......:...... _.F..-\~~ ~ :_. --~___ "
\', -r ~ - - - "-'--' . -", - - "11
'tL:>>>><::>_:::<:: ... -loo-"'~ - .., .... ~. ~,~ ---. - .... ..- ....
,:(""j-,;,..t...~ __' /~;.~ - - ~ -': ';;...,.~,'" I
1"-:<'-:' ,- .<_.,- - ~\ ,... - - -'';-,::-,..-!- ,--
Adjacent Lot :",.<<c:1'~~%:~i:::~:-"''''''''''''' T'''' ...' ...,;:::;:-:>-.::::..-
.~tK+t:77 -tZrS\l ,.L_~::-,.~.
--... ...........~ , "-.::::::.:.::.:.,.':,__. _ :':L::':,:',:'::::.,:::J ."". ".::.....~.. ---~
-..,.. -. _.1r<~... -::::..~ ;:'~O'~'-----------
Street Side ~ -'f"'<"':::;;"'- ~
Property Line -,,<:.,
Interior Yard --------
Sloped Setback
at "Side" Property
Une
Adjacent Lot
PERSPECTIVE DIAGRAM
Figure
9.3065(3)(b)2.c
Interior Yard Setbacks
( Rear)
Iw
'Z
I:J
.)-
Hi:
'W
10-
,0
pt
I
!
!
" ,
Iw
.z
j:J
,)-
Iii:
'W
10-
,0
!&:
!
!
8' (NOT WITHIN 00' OF STREET PROPERTY LINE.)
INTERIOR YARD SETBACK
REAR SECTION I ELEVATION DIAGRAM
Adjacent Lot
/r--~-Interior Yard
/- Sloped Setback
At "Rear" Interior
... ~ .- -....;-,( Property Une
.",......~'...-- J"
__,-- ,,/.....c..~ . I "
.""".....- ;-t'/.,t .......' / "
// "........-~......... '-
;.1'''' ".,- _".,.\~'" ~ ....~ ....',
__-r ./_--- "'-- _..>---- ----~..._---f
~_ - \ ~..,- 1. . ~-..... ... ~ 1
_ ...-' . ~,~ - -......:::..... -.... .",,'" ., I 81
. ...--..~ :::......' ... "\ ,; ..-~::~'~ --~~ I \.
~.....;,- ....... ....'''' ......... -.~-,,~....._~ .",."..,..",.
-:-...._....- ....-.....,..... ...;11,:......~:.........'"
......-" ! .""...~..~. ---
, : --,......."".--
1 ,.'" ""...."...
.....",..--:.~.:
,....~.~ ~
.... .... ...:~ ~.. ------
-. ,. "':. -' 60'..--
-.-........-:""'.- ..._____---------- Adjacent Lot
-~
Note: Interior
Slope Setback Is
Not Applicable To
Interior Yards On
Alleys. See
93065{3)(b)2.a.
......................-....
Street Side ~--/
Property Line
PERSPECTIVE DIAGRAM
Figure
9.3065(3)(b)2.e
Interior Yard Setbacks
(Intrusions)
,.
, ,
" \
.fir ,
'-~. "
'"
~ '/ ,
,"'/'\~/ ,
1'" ,,' ,
,~ .<:/ .,\ ,
.",-" ~-:.-> /';~~~. \
'... .. "'.. , '"-- \
,~/ 71/ ./"" ..~^'......:~\~ ...----............. '
'/.~ /<".... ...\.-....,. ~"-.... ..
;X'''.'' .... " ,'I' " ~ . '. , I
<-z/ /~ "-"-""",,,'
,,\ '----<./" " '. , ..,.... --.......
, "-.. > ' , "._,,~ -
, \ .~,"\ .. \ ' "
~'" ...,..../ '\ I \..,",' /'.
,.~ ('~, \ I '...', /'.
rr., ~L......_'\V' I ... ..., ------_.,' /'.
./ """"'..,'-' I ......,.... ,.....
:./ ". r7:~."~,-, \ :',' . ...~~, Gabl,e Roof May Intrude
,..-1 ,/" ~"'_' 1...__. :"....~..". _,: .~... ./";:<:' Intenor Yard Sloped
,/ \,.......1.... F--~r... l~'" /' /./ -<~' Setback No More Than
<"_ ............ """"'::::,:."",,___ I l"'.:>/..';;iI' 7:"'_../ / --~35' In Width.
............. ....... .....-'-".._..::..,..~: /.-;;41' /- /"1-.
-. _. ...... .. ... "l"'~ /' 60
-'-. .....~.~. /
-'---/' ------------/
PERM1TIED GABLE ROOF IN1RUSIONS
Figure
9.3065(3)(b)2.f
Interior Yard Setbacks
(Dormers)
....'"
" \
.;~/ \
," / "
~"," '" ~ \.
,/~, / ,
,',../ ..,/ ... \.roi' ,
," ,.r,/ x \ '\
,,' //"./ \,'- \
, ---..:,: , ~, '\. \.
'" '" , 'I. ,
,(~' ,<, -- '~~~--=-~.--._,~"~ Two Dormers May
, 7~ 'I.', '. 1b ~ >J ,- -"." '- I I I' Y d
'.//, \ " I ""-",,/, ......~~ '. - '" .:.i'--' _ ntrude ntenor ar
~ ~ ../' /", '. \", .< --~ , ---.. ..., r S
~' " ".......~../ !,' ,;,,__ ;......7_ loped Setback No
(~iV~ ~~' \ ....>.:.';""-,' -<:i 7'Y:"...... ...~~~ More Than 10' Per
I _ ','I. / ,,' -__I:'-.v-: ...,.,,' -::~ -'- Dormer.
I .'......... . 'I.," J..,.-....,....-.<...
..,...,,'" \ ,,,' ~',"'",' -""'"
",' 1.:" ". .~, y // " ",' -. . The Dormers Must
~ "'-..,;;. "/'-"'." Ji ..,/",," /1> B S tb kA
....................... ............~.........: -Ji....//,"'" .". 'ee ac,
-,_ .... I,,,, Minimum Of 2' From
'---. ..........l.'",. Building Face.
---.-",'
PERMITTED DORMER INTRUSIONS
Figure
9.3065(3)(b)3
Interior Yard Setbacks
(Windows)
I
i
i
~~~Ck To ~;;;~~----~-
Surface Of Upper i :
level Windows . :
I :
i
i
i
i
+- 5'-0" .-- -
.
EXAMPLE A
I
i
i
i
~:~~k-T~ Exterior -t------------
Surface Of Upper I
level Windows i
i
j
i
i :
+- 5'-0" -.i<-
.
EXAMPLE B
7\
~ f
((1 (
}Jl
Findings for CA 04...5 and Z 05..14
Establishment of the Special Area Zone
9.3020 Criteria for E$lablishment of an S Special Area Zone. Before adopting an
ordinance establislting a S Special Area Zo"e, the city council shall find that the
proposal is in compliance with following criteria:
(1) The area to which the S Special Area Zone is being applied meets at least one of
the following criteria:
(a) Is idemified in the Metro Plan or a refinement plan as appropriatefor
nodal development or for a special range of uses or development that can best
be achieved with the use of a special area zone; or
(b) Possesses distinctive buildings or natural features that require special
consideration to ensure appropriate development, preservation, or
rehaMlitation. In order to be considered distinctive, it must be demonstrated
that:
1. The area is characterized by buildings that merit preservation in
order to protect their special features; or
2. The area contains 1tatural features that have been identified by
the city as worthy of special treatment or preservation.
The Chambers area meets criterion (1)(a) above. This area is identified as area l.C on the
unadopted advisory map entitled "Potential Nodal Development Areas for the Eugene-
Springfield Metro Area" in TransPlan.
(2) An analysis of the area demonstrates how the uses and development standards
of the S Special Area zone ordinance will facilitate impleme1ttationof the
planned use of ti,e property or the preservation or rehabilitation of distinctive
buildings or natural features of benefit to the community.
The proposed amendment meets this criterion. The report, Chambers Reconsidered: Promoting
Compatible Development in a Mature Neighborhood (2005) provides an analysis of the area that
demonstrates how the proposed development standards of the Chambers Special Area Zone will
facilitate the planned uses in the area. The ETN, R-l and C~2 subareas each have specific
development standards that implement the recommendations of the analysis, which allows for
compatible infUl development within the neighborhood.
(3) Except for areas zoned S-H Historic Special Area Z01te, tlte area to be classified
S Special Area includes at least .u acre in area.
The proposed amendment meets this criterion. The area included in the S-C Special Area Zone
is 81 acres in size.
Exhibit A-I
(4) The application of the zone to the properties proposed for inclusion in the S
Special Area zone and the required provisions of a special area zone ordinance are
consistent with the criteria required for approval of a zone change, according to EC
9.8865 Zone Change Approval Criteria.
Compliance with the zone change criteria is outlined below.
Application of the Special Area Zone to the Site
9.8865 Zone Change Approwd Criteria. Approval of a ZOlle change application,
including the designation of an overlay zone, shallltot be approved unless it meets all
of tlte following criteria:
(1) The proposed change is cOlIsistel1t with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan.
The written text of the Metro Plan sltall fake precedence over the Metro Plan diagram
where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist.
The proposed change is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Metro Plan.
A1!plicable Metro Plan Policies
Residential Densitr POliCl' 4-9 "Establish density ranges in local zoning and
development regulations that are cOllSlstent with the broad density categon'es of this
plan. "
Low density: Through 10 dwelling units per gross acre (could translate up to 14.28 units
per net acre depending on each jurisdictions implementation measures and land use and
development codes).
Medium density. Over 10 tit rough 20 dwelling units per gross acre (could translate to
over 14.28 units per net acre through 28.56 units per net acre depending on each
jurisdictions implementation measures mId land use and development codes.
High density. Over 20 dwelling unlts per gross acre (could translate to over 28.56 units
per net acre depending on each jurisdiction's implemelttation measures and land use and
development codes.)
The proposed zone is consistent with Metro Plan density policies. The zone will provide for
residential densities up to 14.28 units per net acre within the area designated for Low Density
development; and will provide for a density level of approximately 15 units per net acre within
the area designated for Medium Density Residential development.
Exhibit A - 2
Residential Density Polit:V A-l O. "Promote higher residential density inside the Urbtul
growth boundary that utilizes existing infrastructure, improves the efficiency of public
services and facilities, alld conserves rural resource lands outside the urban growth
boundary. "
The proposed amendments are consistent with this policy. Infil1 and redevelopment projects
allowed within this zoning district will utilize existing infrastructure, improve efficiency of
public services and facilities, and conserve rural resource lands.
Residential Density Policy A-II. "Generally locate higher densityresidelftial
development near employment or commercial services, in proximity to major
transportation systems or witllin transportation-efficient nodes. "
The proposed amendments are consistent with this policy. The amendments will encourage the
development of higher density development within areas that are within walking distance of
employment areas, commercial services, and major transit facilities.
Residential Density Policy A~13. "Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan
area by creating more opportunities for effectively designed l'n-:fill, redevelopment, and
11tLlCed use while cmfsidering impacts of increased residential density on historic, existing
and future neighborhoods. "
The proposed zone change will provide opportunities for additional development within the
affected area thereby increasing overall residential densities while reducing development impacts
to existing neighborhood character.
Residentitll Densitv Policy A-14. "Review local zoning and development regulations
periodically to remove barriers to higher density housing and to make provisions for a full
range of housing options. "
The Chambers Reconsidered project reviewed existing zoning regulations intended focusing on
elements of the code that affect the compatibility of new development with existing
development. By providing a greater degree of assurance that new development within the area
will be compatible with the existing neighborhood, resident opposition to development should be
diminished, thus removing -- or at least reducing - an existing barrier to higher density housing.
Residential Densitv Poliev A-IS. ((Develop a lvider range of zoning options such as new
zoning districts, to fully utilize existing Metro Plan density ranges. "
The proposed regulations implemented by this zone change represent a new approach to
increasing the acceptance of infill and redevelopment projects in existing neighborhoods. The
City's range of zoning options will be broader upon its adoption.
Exhibit A - 3
Residential Housinfl Tvpes and Tenure PoliCY A-17 'lProvide opportunities for a full
range of choice in housing type, density, size, cost, and location.
The proposed zone change will expand opportunities for a range of choices in housing type, density,
size and cost by providing for certainty and reduced opposition to new residential development
within the study area.
Residential Housing [}lues and Tenure Policy A-l0 "Encourage home ownership of all
housing types, particularly for low-income households. "
The proposed regulations will encourage the development of smaller housing units in the area.
Those units will be more affordable than larger units, thus encouraging home ownership for
lower income households.
Residential Design and Mixed Ufie Polio' A-13 "Reduce impacts of higher density
residential and mixed use development on surroundiltg uses by considen'ng site,
landscape, and architectural design standards or guidelines in local zoning and
development regulations. "
The proposed amendments support this policy. The development standards in the Chambers
Special Area zone, specifically in the S-C/R-2 subarea provide for new development at higher
densities than currently exists. The development standards include requirements for limits on
building heights, building setbacks, window placement, lot size and allowable number of units
on lots. These standards are intended to reduce the impacts of infiB development on the existing
neighborhoods. Additional standards in the S-C/C-2 subarea will require lowered building
heights for commercial buildings adjacent to residentially zoned property. These development
standards will lessen the impact to the existing neighborhood. Generally, the proposed
amendments will influence the fonn and character of new development by addressing the site,
the landscape in which new buildings will be placed, and the architectural details ofthose new
buildings.
Residenlial Desiglt mId Mixed Use Policy A-14 "Consider adopting or modifying local
zoning and development regulations to provide a discretionary design review process or
clear and objective design standards, in order to address issues of compatibt1ity,
aest/letics, open spac.'e, and other community concerns. "
The proposed amendments support this policy. The Chambers Special Area zone regulations
included clear and objective design standards. Those standards address compatibility, aesthetics,
open space and "other community concerns."
Transportation Policy F.} Apply nodal development strategy ill areas selected by each
jurisdiction that have identifwd potential for this type of transportation-efficient lmld use
pattern.
Exhibit A - 4
The proposed amendments support this policy. The Chambers study area is one of38 areas
identified in TransPlan as having potential for applying the nodal (mixed use) development strategy.
The proposed amendments address one of several identified barriers to implementing the mixed use
concept in the study area. The process of removing barriers to implementation of the mixed use
concept is consistent with this policy.
Trallsporttltion Policv F.l Support application of the nodal development strategy in
designated areas through iliformtltion, technical assistance or incentives.
The proposed amendments support this policy. The Chambers area received a technical assistance
grant from the Oregon Department of Transportation to recommend code changes and for this
mix.ed use area The Chambers Reconsidered process supported the application ofllie strategy
through the development and dissemination of information and the provision of technical assistance.
Transportation Policr F.3. Provide for transit-supportive land use patterns and
developmellt, includi1lg Itigher intensity, tra1lsit..oriented development along major
transit corridors and 1lear transit stations, medium-and high-density residential
development within ~ mile of transit statimJs, major transit corridors, employment
centers, and downtown areas; and development and redevelopment in designated areas
that are or could be weU served by existing or plalwed transit.
The proposed amendments support this policy. The area is served by several transit routes to the
north on 8th Avenue and to south on 11th and 13th Avenues. Areas designated for medium and high-
density residential development are well-served by existing transit lines. The amendments provide
greater certainty that new development within the study area will be compatible with existing
development thereby reducing neighborhood opposition to continued densification of the area.
Trans1!ortation PolicY F.4. Require improvements that encourage transit, bicycles, and
pedestrians in new commercial, public, mixed-use, and multi-u/tit residential
development.
The Chambers Reconsidered process included an Operational and Pedestrian Safety Analysis that
recommends a number of operational improvements to study area intersections and streets for the
purpose of improving conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists. Those street improvement
recommendations have been forwarded to the City Council for consideration.
Transportation Policy F.5 Within three years ofTransPlaJJ 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.
The proposed amendments support this policy. The Chambers study area is identified as a potential
nodal area. Adoption of the Chambers Special Area zone works toward implementation of this
policy although additional actions will be necessary to fully implement the policy.
Exhibit A - 5
(2) The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinement
plans. In the event of inconsistencies between t/tese plans and the Metro Plan, the
Metro Plan controls.
Applicable Growth Management Policies
OMS PolicJ! #1. Support the existing Eugene Urban Growth Boundary by takiltg
actions to increase density and use existing vacant land and under~usetlland within the
bOUltdaty more efficiently.
The proposed amendments support this policy. The amendments provide for an increase in
residential densities in areas zoned S-CIR-I and S-CIR-2 through new provisions for compatible
development on alleys and in the rear yards of lots that are already developed. The increased
densities achieved tlu'ough infill provide for the efficient use of urban land.
OMS Policv #2. Encourage in~fiU, mixed-use, redevelopment, and higher density
development.
The proposed amendments support this policy. The Chambers Special Area zone provides for
compatible infill and redevelopment projects within the area and provides for residential
densities to increase above the current density level.
OMS Polier #4. Improve the appearance of buildings and landscapes.
The proposed amendments support this policy. The S-C/R-2, S-CIR-l and S-C/C-2 zones all
have requirements for improvements to building appearance and landscapes. The S-C/R-2 zone
requires provisions for (among other things): roof design, building orientation, building setback,
garage placement and window placement Code amendments for new development for properties
within the S-C/C-2 zoned areas include provisions that will improve the appearance of
commercially developed property along street frontages. Commercial street facades within 15
feet of the street will provide certain architectural features to improve the appearance to the street
frontage.
OMS Policv #6. Increase density of new housing development while maintaining the
character and livability of individualneighborltoods.
The proposed amendments support this policy. The primary focus and chief objective of the
Chambers Reconsidered project was to provide new development standards that would allow an
increase in residential densities while maintaining the character and livability ofthe East
Traditional Neighborhood that lies within the study area.
GMS Policy #8. Promote construction of affordable housing.
Exhibit A - 6
The proposed amendments support this policy. The new development standards for the S-C/R-2
subarea provide for generally smaller scale housing on alleys and on under-developed portions of
existing developed lots. Opportunities for the construction of affordable housing are directly
influenced by the size of the structures being sold. Generally, the proposed amendments support
the construction of smaller-scale, more affordable housing \vithin the study area.
GMS Policv #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.
The proposed amendments support this policy. The proposed residential development standards
are designed to mitigate the impacts of infiII housing and new higher density housing on the
neighborhood. The development standards include design standards that limit building mass and
hulk, setbacks, building orientation, window placement, which takes into account privacy for
existing neighbors and provides open space areas that contribute to the cohesiveness of the area.
OMS Policv #10. Encourage the creation of transportation-efficient land use patterns
and implementation of nodal developmel1t concepts.
The proposed amendment supports this policy. The Chambers Special Area zone boundaries are
identified by the Metro Plan for potential creation of a nodal (mixed use) area plan that could
implement the concepts of nodal development. The Chambers Special Area zone will allow for a
general increase in density above existing levels and encourage compact residential infill, which
will support general mixed use (nodal) development concepts.
Westside Neiflhborhood Plan Policies
2. Support improving existing housiltg and reducing the number of substandard
units.
The proposed amendments support this policy. The residential development standards contained
within the Chambers Special Area zone support the improvement of existing housing in the area,
including substandard housing. The standards will encourage the improvement of substandard
housing by requiring specific design standards for alterations to existing housing.
3. Tile City shall continue to recognize this area (Central Residential Area) as
appropriate for medium-density residential development and shall discourage
non-residential uses. This policy applies to all portions of the Central Residential
Area, even those properties abutting major arterials such as Chambers Street and
West 1 th Avenue."
Exhibit A ~ 7
The proposed amendments support this policy. The allowable densities are within the range
allowed within the medium-density designation. The list of allowable land uses within the area
is not proposed to be changed.
4. Tlte City shall encourage actions that will preserve existing residential structures,
including rehabilitation, block planning, infilling, and shared housing.
The proposed amendments support this policy. The Chambers Special Area zone focuses on the
preservation of the character of the existing neighborhood, while allowing compatible infill
development. Reductions in allowable densities within the study area and limits on lot
aggregations will serve to limit the construction of larger multi-family residential complexes,
such as apartment buildings, within that portion of the study area to be zoned S-C/R-2. Existing
structures are more likely to be preserved through the application of the density limits and other
provisions of the draft code.
Jeffers()n Far West Refinemeltt Plan P()licies
Residential Polier 1.0 "Encourage both public and private actions that will improve the
overall appearance of the area and the condition o/residential structures."
The proposed amendments support this policy. The development standards contained within the
Chambers Special Area zone include provisions that will improve the appearance of new
residential structures built in the area. For example; the height and setback requirements, f~ade
orientation, garage location and driveway width are all directed at improving the character and
appearance of new residential construction.
ResidentUd Poliq 2.fJ "Increase the opportunity for home ownership witllin the area. "
. Reduce minimum lot size for ownership
. Encourage new res. Develop that provide opportunity for home ownership
. Explore owners}up opportunities that might be available to persOlls with low
incomes.
. Allow cottage units, alley housing and shared housing.
The proposed amendments support this policy. Opportunities for home ownership should be
improved through the provision of smaller-scale housing on alleys and through the provision for
generally smaller-scale housing throughout the residential area. Opportunities for home ownership
are directly influenced by housing costs, which in turn are, to some extent, influenced by the size of
the structures being sold. Generally, the proposed amendments support the construction of smaller-
scale housing within the study area.
Residential Policv 3.0 '~Encourage a mixture of housing densities and types to allow a
dil'erse popu/atum group to live within the area. "
Exhibit A - 8
The proposed amendment support this policy. The area is already quite diverse in its demographic
makeup, housing densities and housing types. The amendments will have no negative affect the
range of housing types that w11l be allowed within the study area but are likely to promote additional
alley access units and cottages throughout the area.
Commercial Policv 2.0 "Encourage both public and private actions which will improve
the overall appearance of commercial areas and the condition of ltOn-residential
structures. "
The proposed amendments support this policy. The Chambers Special Area zone contains
development standards for the S-C/C-2 subarea that will promote improvements to the overall
appearance of commercial developments along major streets and local streets. The proposed
standards also address the form and appearance accessory buildings and garages and should
improve the general condition of those structures over time.
North Low-Density Residential Area (Broadwav to 1 dh west of ChtlJ1tbers) "Tlte City
shall continue to recognize the area as suitable for low...flensity housing. Efforts shall be
made to maintain and improve the existing housing stock through both public and private
investments. In an effort to allow additional residential mlits and yet maintain the
cltaracter of the area, the City shall encourage block planning, infilling, alld shared
housing. Access to housing units off of alleys shall be accommodated when not in
conflict witlt other policies and goals. "
The proposed amendments support this policy. The area remains suitable for low-density
housing. New development standards applicable to the S-C/R-l subarea will promote the
development of additional accessory dwelling in this zone, thus promoting infiU development in
the area. Access to alley housing units is provided for in these amendments.
Central Low-Density Residential Area. 01'. _13th, Garfield to Chambers) "The low-
density desigllatwll recognizes existing residential developmellt and land uses. The City
shall continue to recognize the residential character of the area andprovide incentives for
public and private rehabilitation of rundown structures. In addition, tlte City shall
encourage block planning, infilling and shared housing. Access to housing units off of
alleys shall be accommodated when not in conflict with other policies and goals. "
The proposed amendments support this policy. The area remains suitable for low-density
housing. New development standards applicable to the S-C/R-l subarea will promote the
development of additional accessory dwelling in this zone, thus promoting infill development in
the area. Access to alley housing units is provided for in these amendments.
Exhibit A - 9
(3) The uses and deltsity that will he allowed by the proposed zoning in the location
of the proposed change can be served through the orderly extension of key urban
facilities and services.
New development occurring within the area can be served through the orderly extension of key
urban facilities and services.
(4) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements
set out for the specific ZOIte in:
(a) BC 9.2150 Commercial Zone Siting Requirements.
***
(p) An un codified ordinance establishing a site specific S-H Historic Special
Area Zone, a copy of which is maintained at the city's planning and
development department.
EC 9.8865(4) does not include reference to siting requirements for the S-C Special Area Zone
because that zone is being created as part of this action. See below for discussion of amendment
to Ee 9.8865(4) to add a reference to the siting requirements for this new special area zone. The
application of the S~C Special Area Zone to the proposed properties is consistent with the siting
standards proposed to be adopted for the special area zone.
Code Amendment
9.8065 Code Amendment Approval Criteria. If the city council elects to act, it may, by
ordinance, adopt an amendment to this land use code that:
(1) Is consisteltl with applicable statewide planniltg goals as adopted by the
Land Conservation and Development CommissiOlt.
Goal 1 - Citizen Involvemeltt. To develop a citizen involvement program that insures
the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of tlte planning process.
The City has acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement which insure the opportunity for
citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements for such
involvement. The action taken did not amend the citizen involvement program. The process for
adopting these amendments complied with Goal 1 since it complied with, and surpassed the
requirements of, the citizen involvement provisions. Specifically, the following actions were
taken to insure adequate citizen participation in the project:
. Proiect Notification: Staff provided notification of the project to both the Jefferson
Westside and Far West neighborhood organizations through newsletter articles prior to
the project's commencement. This was followed by a project-specific newsletter to all
property owners, residents and tenants within the Chambers Study area mIDouncing the
project and the first project meeting. The notices were mailed to more than 1700
Exhibit A ~ 10
addresses within the study area as well as to. several hundred other interested parties who.
live outside o.fthe study area but who requested no.tification.
. Proiect Newsletters Follo.wing the initial newsletter mailing, project newsletters were
mailed to all 1700 addresses in the study area prior to the October and November general
meetings. After the November meeting, newsletters were mailed only to those who had
attended previous meetings and others who had requested that their names be placed on
the project notification list.
. Back.ground Information Maps and Pro;ect Information. All background maps
produced for the 1998 Existing Conditions Report were updated to show current
co.nditions for each factor mapped. All tables and text in the report were evaluated for
currency and were updated where necessary. The full Existing Conditions Report and a
Summary of the full report were made available to the public prior to. the first meeting.
. Bicvcle Tour. On October 19, just before conducting the Neighborhood Design
Preferences Survey, staff and consultants joined about 20 area residents for a bike taur of
the neighborhood. We began by following the tour map but responded to participants
suggestions to view o.ther buildings that were not an the tour ro.ute.
. Neighborhood Meetings. Five generalneighborhoo.d meetings were held; ane each in
September, Octoher and November and two in April. Meeting attendance grew from
about 20 to nearly 50 participants by November and remained fairly constant througho.ut
the remainder of the praject. The September l1eighbo.rho.od meeting was held to explain
the project, field questions and stimulate discussion; the October and No.vember meetings
were dedicated to conducting and translating the Neighborho.o.d Design Preferences
Survey. The two. April meetings were held to present the draft standards and guidelines
and the conclusions of the traffic study to area residents.
. Neighborhood Design Preferences Survev The survey is a unique public participation
tool. The survey allows a given audience to provide preference feedback (likes and
dislikes) on visual images that illustrate a set o.fphysicalcharacteristics. The images can
be standardized for multiple presentations o.r customized to. fo.CUS on a unique set of
co.nditio.ns. Surveys can be do.ne citywide, as was done in the 1994 TransPlan pro.cess, o.r
fo.r a smaller area like a neighborhood, as was done for the Chambers project.
The Chambers Reconsidered Neighborhood Design Preferences Survey was crafted to
identify local preferences related to commercial and residential infill and redevelopment
in the Chambers area. The survey design responded to. a criticism o.fthe traditio.nal visual
preference survey that, in the traditional survey, the viewer of an image does not
necessarily know what, specifically, is being evaluated. The Chambers survey was
modified to. ask respondents to judge the image in the co.ntext of a stated topic. All
images in the slide sho.w were identified as having a theme or tapic ("mass and scale",
"parking", etc.) that provided a clue about what information we were seeking.
The survey was given to the group on October 19; the results were presented o.n
November 16. The results presentation was fo.rmatted to. identify tentative "conclusions"
reached by the consultants, while allowing the group to comment on those co.nclusions.
Sometimes the group added new infonnation; sometimes they corrected the consultant's
Exhibit A-II
or staffs impressions about what was meant or what was said. The November meeting
was intended to provide an additional interaction between participants. consultants and
staff that would result in a refined. mutual understanding of the project's objectives.
Information derived from the survey was fed directly into the development of draft codes
(standards) and guidelines.
. Focus Group On Friday March 18. 2005, the consultant team and City staff conducted
an all-day workshop in which the draft standards and guidelines were introduced and
discussed. Half of the day was committed to work on residential standards; half was
committed to commercial standards. While there was an attempt to include testing of the
draft standards as part of each half-day meeting. that part of the program was less
successful than anticipated due to the complexity of the task and the amount of discussion
between participants that was necessary to proceed with testing. The discussions
between participants, consultants and staff however, were very productive and enabled
the consultants and staff to move fonvard with drafting the standards and guidelines.
Several months before the workshop. City staff created an event application form to
insure that a full range of neighborhood interests were represented in the process. That
fonn was distributed at the November neighborhood meeting, was posted on the City's
Mixed Use Development website and was available at the Permit Information Center.
The form asked applicants to disclose which interest groups they represented and why
they would like to serve on the group. The application process was left open between
November 16. 2004 and January 28,2005.
Twenty-seven applications were received. Thirteen of the applicants indicated an interest
in attending the residential focus group; 8 indicated a preference for the commercial
focus group, and 6 indicated an interest in attending both. On February 24. 2005 the
Planning Commission approved all 27 applications to serve on the focus group and
participate in the workshop.
. Interaction and additional meetings with interested parties. This project generated an
unusually high number of e-mail exchanges between neighborhood residents. consultants
and city staff. Most of the e~mail dialogue was carried 011 between City staff and
members of Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN), an
organization of area residents who were very active in this planning process. Staff
received approximately 300 e-mails between September and May, many of which
requested data, information, or answers to questions. In addition to the scheduled
meetings with aU interested parties, staff and consultants met with representatives of
CAFHN on two occasions to discuss code concepts for the "East Traditional
Neighborhood" area that was of greatest interest to CAFHN members.
. Internet Postinf<s. All materials relating to this project have been posted on the Planning
and DevelopmentDepartment Mixed Use Development website
Therefore, the process followed is consistent with Goal 1.
Exhibit A ~ 12
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. To estabUslt a land use planning process and policy
framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure
an adequate factual basis for such decisions and actions.
The record shows that there is an adequate factual base for the actions.
The Goal 2 coordination requirement is met when the City engages in an exchange, or invites
such an exchange, between the City and any affected govel11l11ental unit and when the City uses
the infonnation obtained in the exchange to balance the needs of the citizens. To comply with
the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City engaged in an exchange about the subject of this
action with an of the affected governmental units [i.e."those local governments, state andfederal
agencies and special districts which have programs, land ownerships, or responsibilities within
the area included in the plan.'1 Specifically, the City met several times with the Oregon
Department of Transportation to insure that transportation-related investigations affecting State
Highways within the study area were consistent with the State's needs. Notice of the plmming
process and proposed amendments have also been provided to School District 4-J; the City of
Springfield, Lane Transit District, and Lane County.
There are no Goal 2 Exceptions required for this action. Therefore, the amendments are
consistent with Goal 2.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands. To Preserve Agricultural Lands.
The amendments are for property located within the urban growth boundary and do not affect
any land designated for agricultural use. Therefore, Goal 3 does not apply.
Goal 4 -F' ores' Lands. To conserve forest lands.
The amendments are for property located within the urban growth boundary and do not affect
any land designated for forest use. Therefore, Goal 4 does not apply.
Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Sceltic and Hiswric Areas, and Natural Resources. To conserve
f'pen space and protect natural and scenic resources.
These amendments do not create or amend the city's list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a
code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific
requirements of Goal 5, do not allow new uses that could be conflicting uses with a significant
GoalS resource site and do not amend the acknowledged UGB. Therefore, Goal 5 does not
apply.
Goal 6 * Air. Water mId land Resource Oualifi!. To maintain and improve the quality
of the air, water and land resources of the state.
Exhibit A - 13
The amendments to not affect the City's ability to provide for clean air, water or land resources.
Therefore, Goal 6 does not apply.
Goal 7 ~ Areas Subiect to Natural Disasters and Hazards. To Protect life and property
from natural disasters and hazards.
The actions do not effect the City's restrictions on development in areas subject to natural
disasters and hazards. Further, they do not allow for new development that could result in a
natural hazard. Therefore, Goal 7 does not apply.
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs. To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the
state and visitors, and where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary
recreational facilities iltcluding destination resorts.
The plan amendments do not effect the city's provisions for recreation areas, facilities or
recreational opportunities. Therefore, Goal 8 does not apply.
Goal 9 - Economic Development. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the
state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of
Oregon's citizens.
The amendments do not impact the supply of industrial or commercial lands. Therefore, the
amendments are consistent with Goal 9.
Goal 10 - HousinJ!.. To provide for the housing needs of citizeltS of the state.
The amendments do not impact the supply of residential lands. Therefore, the amendments are
consistent with Goal 10.
Goal 11- Pnblic Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, orderly and
efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for
urban and rural development.
The plan amendments do not effect the City's provision of public facilities and services.
Therefore, Goal 11 does not apply.
Goal 12- Trans/Jortation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
Transportation PlalUling Rille (OAR 660-012-0060) contains the following requirement:
(1) Amendments to . . . land use regulations which significantly affect a transportation
facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent lvith the identified function, capacity,
and performance standards (e.g. level of service. volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility....
Exhibit A - 14
(2) A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if
it:
(a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility;
(b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system;
(c) Allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access
which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility; or
(d) Would reduce the pelformance standards of the facility below the minimum acceptable level
identified in the TSP
The proposed amendments are consistent with Goal 12. The proposed amendments will not
change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility. Nor will
they change standards implementing a functional classification system. Further, the amendments
will not allow types Of levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which
are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility; or reduce the
performance standards ofthe facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP.
Goal]] - Ene11!V Conservation. To conserve energy.
The amendments do not concern energy conservation. Therefore, Goal 13 does not apply.
Goa114 - Urhanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural
to urhan land use.
The amendments do not affect the City's provisions regarding the transition of land from rural to
urban uses. Therefore, Goal 14 does not apply.
Goa115 - Willamette River Gree:llwav. To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the
natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands
along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.
The amendments do not contain any changes that affect the regulation of areas within the
Willamette River Greenway. Therefore, Goal IS does not apply.
Goo116: Estuarine Resources, Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands, Goal 18: Beaches and
Dunes, and 600119: Ocean Resources.
Goals 16 through 19 apply to Coastal Resources. The requirement that a site-specific historic
zone be applied only to an area that is consistent with that zone's siting requirements does not
implicate Goals 16-19.
(2) Is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable
adopted refinement plans.
Exhibit A - 15
Applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and adopted refinement plans are addressed above.
(3) In the case ofestablisltment of a special area zone, is consistent with Be 9.3020
Criteria for Establishment of an S Special Area Zone.
The criteria at Ee 9.3020 are addressed above.
Exhibit A - 16
Chambers Node Reconsidered - Operational and Pedestrian Safety Analysis
City of Eugene, Oregon
DRAFT 5
Table 15. Operations and Pedestrian Safety Recommendations
I nte~~;-cti~~i~_=~___~~~~_-~~_-~~_-_-~_-~~________u____ ------T;;~i_~~~~~_~~~-_~~_~~_~~_-~_____________ --------------::_::~~~==~~:~_~~~_!~ianS ________u::::~~~=~~_~:__ ----j
1. Expand northbound approach from a shared through and 1. Shorten pedestrian crossing distance by adding an island i
right and exclusive right to an exclusive through lane and to channelize dual northbound right turn :
dual right turn lanes with island 2. Control northbound right turn with a signal
2. Optimize signal timings , 3. Add sidewalks on north and south sides of 7th west of
3. Add %-second all red clearance for each phase \ Garfield
4. Add markings to guide eastbound traffic from West tH I
\ Place onto West ih Avenue
i 5. Extend and modify ("elephant tracks") northbound solid
L__\YtiiteJ~ne line to the 0!~th_____mm_m___ I-m_--_m__-
! 1. Add northbound right turn bay
ten D i 2. Add southbound through lane
. 7fu :tP~:e~s ---~.i;~i~~~~Eg::::.~i~i~S~;;~:tiO 11. :r::i::-~e:::I:nover~PPhase f:;~~~~::=--l
i 1" rf t cmeria. all analyzed strategies did not improve ! crossing east leg !
\ 1 at Ga leld I operations. Other than optimizing timings. no other traffic i 2. Remove vegetation overgrowing on sidewalk on the west!
i mlr~~=::!~7fiE;~~:ri:~~:r:: intersection side of Gan,~lg~~th_QfJHh mmmmmi
i 11 th at Chambers: 3. Remove northbound left turn movement i
~~,_mmm ~:_~~~::,:~~g:1I redm~~~ran""form~~Q1phase 11, Addskiewalkbuibs in northwest andsoulhWestoorners -1)
th 1 ! 2. Stripe crosswalk on west leg
i 13 at Garfield . i 3. Cut back limbs overgrowing above sidewalk on the south i
!_mmmmm _ Jmmmmm.m mmmm__t=~i9~1)f1~,"west of Garfieldmmm_ j
. I. .
113~ at.c:~a"'bers11m~ntersection operatesm~~tlsfact<>riIY:::~~limize timings __mm_m _m_m__ _j'
Garfield to i 1. Further investigate converting 11th to 2-way between i .
I Chamb~_~~_____m___L._____~~rfield and Chamber~___mm____n_mmm______ : __n_m.._______mm___.__ m_________m_____._.l
1. Unsignalized intersection.
th at Garfield
>-
,..,..
--
~
=-
a
g
...
=
May 27, 2005
PTV America, Inc.
Page 41
TSM..PROJECT J>ROPOSAL 05-03
Pedestrian Refuge Island on Chambers Street north of Broadway
BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM STATEMENT
As a part of the Chambers Revisited Mixed Use development evaluation, one of the issues that
have been consistently expressed is the divisiveness of Chambers Street between the areas east
and west of this heavily traveled Minor Arterial. Chambers Street connects to River Road
(former Pacific Highway) and essentially forms a long distance (over 20 mile) north/south
arterial between Junction City to the n011h and the Lorane HighwayfBlanton HeightsfPeaceful
Valley/Gillespie Corners/ Crow/Applegate areas of Lane County south and southwest of Eugene.
Chambers Street between 8th Avenue and 13th Avenue was constructed to city standards by
installation of curbs and gutters in 1953. It was widened in 1988 and currently has 42 feet of
paving curb to cllrb within a 60 foot right-of-way Chambers Street has a posted speed of 30 mph
south of7lh Avenue and carries 16,000 ADT between ill and 11th avenues, 17,100 between 11th
and 13th, and 19,300 south of 13th Avenue.
Peak hour counts and observations confirm that heavy tTaffic and significant queuing, particularly
southbound between 8th and 11 th create a formidable barrier to east/west pedestrian and bicycle
travel. \Vith signalized crossings on Chambers at t\ 8t\ and 11th, there is a considerable area (at
least three blocks in length) where crossing Chambers is difficult.
A 42 foot wide expanse of pavement striped with bicycle lanes on each side, a travc1lane in each
direction and a continuous two-way left turn lane confinn and contribute to this perception.
Finding a simultaneous gap in traffic in both directions and no conflicts in the open median are
difficult at most times and nearly impossible during peak periods.
PROPOSED SOLUTION
This project, as described herein and shown on the attached sketch, proposes to place a pair of
raised concrete islands in the median of Chambers Street with at-grade cut-through for pedestrian
and bicycle travel between 8th Place and Broadway to line up \vith the unmarked crosswalk on
the north side of Broadway. Southbound traffic on Chambers would be prohibited from
executing a left turn onto Broadway.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Since the recent pavement preservation project has provided a continuous overlay of this section
of Chambers Street, this would not be a good candidate, for landscaping, so the cost estimate
provided herein is based upon raised concrete islands poured on top of the paved surface.
Overall approximate dimensions of both islands would be 10' wide by 30' long, 6" height,
approximately 6 cu. yds. of PCC, 5/8" rebar pins driven into the pavement, mobilization,
temporary protection and direction of traffic and 25% Engineeling and Contingencies for a total
of approximately $6,000.
To maximize the effectiveness of and raise awareness of this new crossing, we would
recommend signing and marking it as a "continental" or "ladder har" high visibility crosswalk
with pedestrian/bike warning signs on each approach and "Yield to bikes and peds" supplemental
advisory plaques. All signing and markings must be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic
Engineer.
IMP ACTS
Based upon this recolmaissance-Ievel scoping, the restriction of southbound left turning
movements from Chambers to Broadway may have a positive effect in reducing potential cut-
through traffic by requiring drivers to make the left into the neighborhood at 8th Avenue or 10th
Avenue, rather than Broadway. All movements to and from either Broadway approach to
Chambers or 8th Place at Chambers would not be restricted or reduced.
07/12/05 G.Mc.
\
.,
s
Vl
\\ ~
~
ifh Avenue l
.-.
II
<.N
<:::>
~
\ \
\ \
, \
,1-_--- .
......- - . 1-- . ::, ~.
\ \
\ .f
~ s~ [
\ \
\\
\ 1\1
\'
~,
\
gth place
----- ---- - --
]5rei#>rfway
ISM PRQJl:CT ~RQPOSAL 05-04
...,
Pedestrian Refuge Island on Chambers Street north of 12th Avenue
BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM STATEMENT
As a part of the Chambers Revisited Mixed Use development evaluation, one of the issues that
have been consistently expressed is the divisiveness of Chambers Street between the areas east
and west of this heavily tTaveled Minor Arterial. Chambers Street COilllects to River Road
(former Pacific Highway) and essentially forms a long distance (over 20 mile) north/south
arterial between Junction City to the north and the Lorane Highway/B1anton HeightsJPeaceful
Valley/Gillespie Comers! Crow/Applegate areas of Lane County south and southwest of Eugene.
Chambers Street between 8th Avenue and 13th Avenue was constTucted to city standards bv
installation of curbs and gutters in 1951 and currently has 42 feet of paving curb to curb within a
60 foot right-of-way. Chambers Street has a posted speed of 30 mph south of 11th Avenue and
carries 17,100 ADT between 11th and 13th, and 19,300 south of 13th Avenue.
Peak hour counts and observations confmn that heavy traffic between 11th and 13th avenues
create a formidable barrier to east/west pedestrian and bicycle travel. 1ih Avenue from the
connection with the Fem Ridge Path west of Arthur Street to Hilyard Street is designated on the
Eugene-Springfield Bicycle Map as a popular bicycle street. However, the nearest signalized
crossings on Chambers are at 11th and 13th,
Crossing this 42 foot wide expanse of pavement striped with bicycle lanes on each side, a travel
lane in each direction and a continuous two-way left turn lane is daunting for both bicycles and
pedestrians. Finding a simultaneous gap in traffic in both directions and no conflicts in the open
median are difficult at 1110st times and nearly impossible during peak periods.
PROPOSED SOLUTION
This project, as described herein and shown on the attached sketch, proposes to place a
landscaped raised concrete island in the median of Chambers Street with at~grade cut-through for
pedestrian and bicycle travel on the north side of 1 ill Avenue to line up with the unmarked
crosswalk 011 the nOlth side of the intersection. Southbound traffic on Chambers would be
prohibited from executing a left turn onto I ih A venue.
~ 1 \
~ \
\1\
l:l:i
';t.j
t;I'J
~
~~,
s
\0
a
~
l
,....
II
w
<:::>
..--:::;:;::::; - -
-=J
J \ 0
\
\
\
\
\
~--
\
\
\
\
--
~~
===-- - -
"" - .---==
12111 A. VENUE
\
\
\
l
\
\
\
\
,
'-~" ....-... .---"" ,,' ,-
,
\ \\
\ l.
t \
Attachment C
SUMMARY MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Cammissian
Slaat Raom-The Atrium Building-99 West loth Avenue
.",,;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.";'
,-'.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;,.
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:~.
26,2005
11 :30 a.m.
PRESENT:
Jahn Lawless, President; Jan Belcher, Rick Dun6~ni2&i'!6ay Hledik,
Anne Marie Levis, members; Mike Sullivan, ex (t4?Big~~m.?er; Gabriel
Laurence, Allen Lowe, Susan Muir, Steve Nystro~, Ri~'lli~~~~2man; .~urt Yeher, Plan-
ning and Develapment Department staff;1:;mi~Y:Jerome, citY'A11~_S::; Paul Cante,
Erika Seiferling, Janice Gatchall, c~~~r:~:~~~:~;i~l~l~~hn Ru~sell;::~t~~e Pethick, Steve
",',',",", ...:.... .....,,:...y-~"~-~.~.~.:.:'. .;,;.
Pringle, Chambers Area Families foit~~alt~t::;N~fgti.~~!g:9ds; Phil Carroll, Alice Par-
man, Jim Spickerman, ~AnI:::;guests.
,c.>.>.'.'.'.'.'.','.'.V.""".".~.:h
.',','.',',','.'.','.'.'.'.',,,'"".'.:.,,:"":""...........,".><,
'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'."_''''.''''",''''"",,:h:.:.:.:,>,<,,),>:.:.":':''''''
"-V-~.,',-"',',','.'.T.V,+.'.'.'.'
-__,_,V.?_.',','.>,'.".','
-:V,'c-,',',?v.'
ABSENT:
Mitzi Calbath, Vice
N.,.",.,~~:.:~:::::;>~::~~:~~~~~~~~S,~.;,~:;~~;:;:;~;~;~;~;>
"'""" """"':':':_:':_:':':_:_:_:Vv'._,
V~VN'.V.V,-.V,
PUBLIC.,Q~MMENT ON NON-A~!jDA
,',',',',',',',','N,-,
......,-,-,y,
I. DOWNTO~!:IONINGJ)tSTRICT - CITIZEN INVOL VEMENT PROCESS
'"''
',~ ,','.N.,'h',','.."V. ,~V.'.'.'
..-.......,..,..,.,~..,..,..N,.,',V,.,'-,
-,..N.N,.,.,.,~',.,',',.,'-'
Staff: Nan Lauren~~:;'682-5340
Ms. Levis, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to. apprave the initial phase
of citizen invalvement for the Downtawn Rezaning Review project as
amended. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0.
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Cammissian
Regular Meeting
September 26,2005
Page 1
n. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
III. PC DEIJIBERATION/ACTION: CHAMBERS INFILLIREDEVELOPMENT CODE
Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr.
side dormers, and that the height
and one-half feet from the floor of the
In
Staff: KUJi Yeiter, 682-8379
four
.;.;.;.;."'.;.:.;.;.;.;.:.;.;.;.;.;....."-"-..
Mr. Belcher modifie;~.his mot~~BI~~::[~t1ec~
correction. The
second was amenatil~ftP the5hodifi~iuQn~1:i
".... ",,'.' ,.-,."":-,0));.;.;,;,;.;,
The mo1:loo~faiJed, 1 :4, co~ssigffer Belcher voting in favor, and com-
"'~'~"'';'''';''-'''. v. -.:<:.:,:.:".".';'';''~';''~'~';V/;'>'
,TX.,T"~.~..VI.V.'.', .-,:.:.: ';';';';'';'';',v,<,.,'/
missi~~gFg;;~~fan, Hledik:H~d~peth, and Lawless voting in opposition.
....'.
'." ........."'.~.~,~,~.v.:.v.'..
sec6~~~d.by Mr. Duncan, moved to deny approval of this
it was matched with a concurrent opportunity zoning deci-
same area of Eugene. The motion failed, 2:3, commissioners
and Duncan voting in favor, and commissioners, Hledik,
and Lawless voting in opposition.
Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Hudspeth, moved to recommend that the
City Council approve the draft Chambers Reconsidered code amend-
ments and zone change proposals, as contained in Attachment A, and the
recommended transportation improvements described in Attachments D,
E, and F, as well as the proposed revisions in Attachment C distributed
during the beginning of the meeting.
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 26, 2005
Page 2
The motion passed, 1 :4, commissioners Duncan, Hledik, Hudspeth, and
Lawless voting in favor, and commissioner Belcher voting in opposition.
IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
B. Other Items from Commission
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 26, 2005
Page 3
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Connnission
Sloat Room-The Atrium Building-99 West 10m Avenue
.,.;......,'.'.^.y..^.^.^.^N'
....."-..'-.'N'.^.^.'.'.'.'..
,.d:;September 26, 2005
'......,'
11:30 a.m.
PRESENT:
-..;,..,".,...,."-,.'.^..N'''"'
;...,...,y.,....^..,..."""'<',.,..
:-;.....~.. ..'.....'.'<~.,,""v.'.
-..;...~. .^""""""C<..:.....
John Lawless, President; Jon Belcher, Rick DunJ~~~af'~ledi;:fJ~~~:ii~m:.:!tgg~peth,
Anne Marie Levis, members; Mike Sullivan, ex o.tl~rf~~~:m?:ber; Gabriei'Ff8~~~;'Nan
Laurence, Allen Lowe, Susan Muir, Steve Nystr01~, Ricfij~:::i~:t!1man, JKurt Yeiter, Plan-
ning and Development Department staf~i,:~m~f:~]erome, CitY'}\[fi.~~eY; Paul Conte,
_,-9.:';.:,......,:,)):<<<,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;'. .,.,.............
Erika Seiferling, Janice Gotchall, C~.mrrDeF~i~;~'~~T: Ru~sell/Si~ve Pethick, Steve
Pringle, Chambers Area Families fd.~i.~~a1t~~:Neig~~gf:~f:Wds; Phil Carroll, Alice Par-
man, Jim Spickerrnan, "":'Ang.~~~ Roon~~<:::gG~sts.
Way, expressed concern \vith the Mixed Use Center (MUC) process,
some MUCs included the MUC being divided by major arterials that created
barriers to their intended purpose. He also was concerned that various groups, such as developers, staff
and neighborhoods were playing off each other, adding that he wished they would come together in a
ABSENT:
Mitzi
Mr.
the meeting
PUBLIC
ITEMS
Charles Biggs, 540
consensus forum to share view's and reach greater resolution.
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 26, 2005
Page 1
I. DOWNTOWN ZONING DISTRICT - CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROCESS
Ms. Laurence offered the stafheport of the Downtown Zoning District Citizen Involvement Process.
She referred to two posters on the wall entitled: Transit Orientation Development Overlay Zones 1.0 and
2.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Downtown Vision Key Next Steps (Adopted by Council April 9, 2001).
Ms. Laurence said the Downtown Plan implementation strategy call~5t~~E::th~:~great~g!1 of a single zone to
unify the downtown core and to support downtown developmenti(&ff&.wfng.,g Commission
direction, planning staff had requested that the City Council init~!~ a codec~uneridmlijtto begin the staff
work and full public participation. Council action directed staffi~f:~~licli:;~~ider r~~~~ilJPl:+#~hn
potential issues prior to the initiation of the code amendment proc~;~~:';fi1~::R!anning Co~i~ii~~g~, acting
as the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) for land use matters:~~as ~ik~j:!g.provjde.advice about how
(AIS).
Vo-..", .,.<,
.'-".v.."."v.......~...........'.-.'
......................'0'.......,..,.
the public outreach might take place in this unique
Ms. Laurence reviewed the review process that
Agenda Item Summary
Ms. Laurence said the City Council dirs@;.t~1~taff to to solicit public input and to
further refine the issues ull~er consid~riiH~~:::rgr.:)nitiation of a code amendment for downtown-related
regulations on SeB~~~t4~:~~:::I~~jjjl1~~~~
.,.,..M,.......,.....b^<'.'.^h
'............"..,.,.,.",...,.,.,^^
...:.:..:.....,.,.......:......".,..
_."",..."'........^.^...y....,',...N
'..,.",.,........v...'...'^"'"
."-',^
The Pla~?:?:B~.Commission, as the ciiji~~~IC. was'~asked by the council to provide input on the prelimi-
nary s.C'6pi:;';~itase of this project. Foft~~ing City Council's initiation of the code amendments, staff
v,' -"";:::;:;:;~:(:B:~:;r~';,:;> 3:;~~~~r
will bring a rifQ~j~~~l~:nsive citizen in;g:~rvement plan to the Planning Commission for approval.
',,-,/,.,.,.,.,.,..",".','.'.
.,'..,.,...,v,.,.,..'.......
..v..,...................v.
Ms. Laurence said staffi~~::~~~nlg for approval from the Planning Commission of a modified citizen
involvement plan that dif!~1i{!d somewhat from that in the AlS, that included one citizen workshop and an
expanded website that would serve as a virtual public open house, in response from the council and the
public.
In response to a question from Ms. Levis regarding the City Council concern, Ms. Laurence said staff had
presented information including tour specific issues at the September 12, City Council meeting.
including making changes to the TD overlay, parking, C-2 and C-3 changes related to ground Hoor
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 26, 2005
Page 2
residential and limitations on surface parking.
Ms. Laurence said the council was comfortable with three of the four proposals, noting that it was not
comfortable limiting surface parking. The council felt the only citizen involvement had been through the
Planning Commission and the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (BRAC), but there had been
no other citizen participation. In a four to four vote, with Mayor Kitty Piercy casting the tie breaking
vote, the council voted to direct staff to solicit additional citizen inputbeforettbe cOl.IDcil initiated a code
amendment. H.<::;g@2~51:~:~~~155~f::'.:::::'
""""'.'.""""""""""~
..',..',>,>.,....v,>,'.'.",,-.'.',
......0,> '.....V6""~.~'~."._
'.""" ,,'."v.~.~.'.'N,-,.<
.... "V"""'"';';'X":"::<:
">v,',",'" .'.:.-,-, "
Speaking as a member of both the Planning Commission and the ~&~Q~i:Mr. Duncati:sijti&the Ri'fking lot
"""-C"';-;"'~';';':" ..........c.,.,M............"'^ A."
".~".~.;-;.;.~,;,;.;.;.. '.,', .,..,.".....".......^<''''''''-''h^h.
discussion was an interim plan to provide opportunities to create l}!:g:Ji~l:::~~g.~ity on cOlnn;2fgiiifiJfoperties
in the downtown area. The ERAC recognized that phasing might be the ~E~~~:~ wa:.!o encourage
project construction. He said it appeared to him that the undersfOfii::ffijTthe commission
Ms. Laurence said the argument about
City Council.
adequately explained to the
and ERAC were asking for more surface parking
thi!i'i'as an interim measure.
as having too narrow a scope of issues,
a broader spectrum of the public, which was the
intent
Mr. Duncan
such as financial feasibility of projects, that needed to be
included in
if he had ideas for getting the information out to the public and to the
council. He opined a developers forum could provide a meaningful way to solicit informa-
tion. He added that Ms. Laurence had explained the information well before the City Council, and that
the council wanted a broader range of opinion.
Mr. Duncan cited the Portland area as an example where lending institutions and other development
related organizations provided the type of information that would be helpful for that area.
MINUTES - Eugene Planning COlnn1ission
Regular Meeting
September 26, 2005
Page 3
Mr. Belcher suggested bringing forward infonnation created by Terry Moore of ECONorthwest several
years ago regarding development issues in the downtown area. He asked for clarification on what Ms.
Laurence's goal was for the public in the process.
Ms. Laurence said the goal was to start with the four identified issues, and determine if there were
additional issues, as well as determining a priority for the issues.
";';';';';'/-:';'. '.'.'.'.'
Mr. Lawless liked the idea of starting with a loose framework that:-:W~~:::Bg~n ~;~~~':'f~ solicit what other
things impacted the community as citizens, developers, and as v~~~igrs. H5::~d~~~~;~~~ idea 0\ a
developer financing educational session, to provide the context o'f~i~~~~'{;elopmentS"::~~0;:~~~~ened.
"<'~"'V,,"'v..-"V'8" .;.;:;.:~:.:.:.:.;.:;:;:;;.:"
'.'.'............".'.'
'i<~<<,..".."......,,'-v_...".~....',
<<v;':' ?,..,,'-v....,.........,
,/,;<, ..~v,'-.;...<..v.......',
<..;-:.;,' ...,......................'.
Ms. Levis said she was concerned with two things, the first being '~hy wi~:;:f.~~f:f,:concel}1 at the City
Council about initiating this code amendment process,~~~;~~~~I~uld the c~~~~~~~:'forward the
council what it wanted in a timely manner. Secondly{..~Sa do~~~business q,-wner/property owner,
.. . " " "" '".-
there was a perception in the community that the c4~p~ pr~~~~~:~~i!~~'!B@ii~omewhat unorganized.
Ms. Levis asked if major downtown pr~~r~,owners could:jl::g~~~ght into the process. She said there
was a need to reach o~~::~~:~~~.~~r,plai~f~:;:::~~::gpsure that wh~t~'~er actions the commission proposed
and the council ad9PJ~?iiij:::~~~::~~~~~.~he pi6~~~~~~?rs' development plans. She added that wonky
perceptions n$~dgd to be better irt.~~~..
Mr. QUrlcaU%~;!l.lR?rted Ms. Levis' co~~~nts, adding that by going to the key downtown players, the list
of important H~~::~::.:?iscusS with cOM~eil may be expanded, but also may solicit greater clarification on
how business pedpt#]i~~~;,the cit*;;~;p~oposal and efforts. He noted that large pieces of downtown had
not been developed in'[::~~i'~~fi*K and it was important to get an idea from business owners on what
issues were important to :~~fu. If issues identified by the Planning Commission and City Council were
not important to the busfi1ess people, there may be other areas the city should focus on. The result of
soliciting infom1ation from business people may be a nalTower scope of work. He emphasized that he
did not wish to revisit the downtown plan at this time.
Mr. Hudspeth asked if there were examples of special zoning in use in other communities.
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 26, 2005
Page 4
Ms. Laurence replied the research had been done, and it had shown that there were two ways to facilitate
the process. The first was to create a special zoning district. The second was to state that existing zoning
was adequate and ask if it could be treated better. She opined that Eugene fell in the middle, noting that
there were multiple layers of zoning districts. She asked if they could be simplified by creating one
downtown district. She said the review revealed that the zones were working pretty well, but they were
inconsistent, confusing, and perhaps there was not enough flexibility.
Ms. Laurence suggested rather than creating an entirely new zoni.~g::aI~ffi6t, ~~~\~g the existing
zoning districts to make them work better may be an acceptable ~~t~tion. ~Jte~:iidd~~::~tother c()mmuni.
ties had successfully followed this route using a variety of meth~~l\'~~~~tfi~g how ~3.~~~:~J:tf}eqUired
FAR, minimums versus maximums, or where flexibility was offe~s9~b~~~::HPon height or;;ij~~;:;
Mr. Hudspeth asked for specific examples or case studie~b9'f::::w::b;:lt other regiortil~~lhunities had done
":":-:';":';';';';';"'-""""',',',',', ':.:.:,.;.:".:,:.-
to stimulate their downtown areas.
.....b..............~.y.~.......
.;t,.,. ..,.,....~ .'.~.~.y .~.~.'
....................
Ms. Laurence noted that zoning by itself wa~:~~ithe cause.:Br develQ'plft€nt, but rather one tool, coupled
with the land use code, to encourage dey1f:1Qlb~~t. Gener~jj~~tll~~~!~ommunities that were successful
looked at a diverse Portf~~12?::lJl~I~dintl.~~~~~~g~, codes th::;;~~~~~raged development, and community
decisions about w~tsi~8~~~~~~~"~~.::f~~m. SW&l[~~~!~~:;;~ considering this at a future meeting.
Mr. Hu~~~~.suggested adding sevei~~~~~~ganizati6ns to the interested parties list, including: University
of Or.~g6B:~~::~~,:fommunity College,;E~~ceHealth, and Triad Hospitals, Inc. Additionally, he suggested
including E~g~~},~;:~ommunity or~~f,ffizations that drew visitors into the downtown area, such as the
Oregon Bach FesiIWfl@~~sene BaJ!~rCompany, Eugene Symphony, and the DO\\1J1town Initiative for the
":';';';':'X'X';';':':';'. ".,:.:.;.;.:-
Visual Arts (DIVA). ..::.::.:.:.:.:.................:.:...:.:..
As a board member of the Downtown Eugene Incorporated (DEI) for many years, Mr. Lawless suggested
using an aggressive approach by invitation to encourage representation by interested downtO\vn property
owners, both inside and outside of the DEI membership, and outside of the identified dO\vntown
boundary, such as the Fifth Street Public Market and the Midtown District, to solicit participation, as
stake holders.
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 26, 2005
Page 5
Mr. Belcher said some members of the City Council said the original approach had been too focused on
downtown people and their interests. He encouraged staff to ensure that input from users was also
solicited. He asked if there was value in having this issue come back to the Planning Commission before
it went to the City Council, if the Planning Commission would be involved with a forum.
Mr. Lawless stated it was important for all involved to have a good understanding of the political issues
surrounding the process. Additionally, it was important for all to hav~a::gp()4Al11der~tanding of what the
City Council wanted, the direction of the Growth Management S~F:(a~S),;l;W~~~at the Downtown
Vision encompassed. He added that the council needed to be cl~~~.:.;vith it:;:;:~ritent~::~p:~::;goliticalrews to
enable the process to be successful. '::-:':':':':':::::':';::.;::;:;:;:' ";';';:;:;:;:;:-:;:-:;:;~;.:~~:;::'
....,..,.,.".".".,."...",-".,.,.",,'..,
...........,...."."....".".,M..,'-
.....v' ........".".,.....,.,..."..
.....,...,....."".........,
.;."
Ms. Levis said DEI may be willing to provide information about the proces:~~~)pcludi2g information
^,'.^.^h?'.'.^.^.'.... ,,".,,-
about it through the DEI newsletter, as well as facilitatingd1aT:Ij~jpating with pt8p~#Y~nd business
,"v,"v,.~<"."~"","""~"""~,,~" -. '" ,".'"'' ""'"
owners. She added that the proposed website virtual:~~~~dh6~iil~a cre~tiv~::~~y to solicit feedback.
She reiterated that it was important tu clarify what r~~Rl! th:~fi~~&~l~g~:t::::~as looking for, and suggested
that commissioners should check with their b~ddie~!bn this iS~~~:::':'
n......
..;..........'........-..-.
......-......-.,....-...-..........
Ms. Laurence summarized the
noting that one-on~one contacts with property
addition to the website proposal and a
owners, DEI, neigh119f~i:ilid:::I~gg~~;:~g?
citizen meeti~~::Were desired coitiilm~~!f.
Mr. ~awle~~:::~l.4.it was important to @:miide feedback from various groups to provide broad coverage in
",.' -':':':':-':':"",":':.':':.':':".- .............
a concise marirl@f.::~~.:~.springboard top~bvide informative feedback.
Mr. Sullivan supportea\t@!!:::~!lican's proposal of bringing forward material notions of developability
and finance to the table. I!ineeded to done in a clear manner, ifnot fom1ally, to ensure that it was
~ .
recognized as a legitimate element of the process. He suggested this could be accomplished in a variety
of ways, such as through a forum, or with information from Terry Moore.
Mr. Sullivan said significant teams were working with two prospective downtown developments, and
opined it would be beneficial to have input about the future from those developers.
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 26, 2005
Page 6
Ms. Levis, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to approve the initial phase
of citizen involvement for the Dmvntown Rezoning Review project as
amended. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0.
Ms. Levis encouraged Planning Commissioner's to talk with their council buddies about this issue.
Mr. Duncan proposed revising the agenda, and moving II A. Other
the agenda. Mr. Lawless noted consensus from commissioners
..........",'..",'.v",<,,,,,v..
,'.........^,.,.,.,.h',."'''v,Nb.,
.......,...h.......^'""""v/.":,..,,,,..
n. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
Ms. Muir reported that on September 12,2005, the ~]~~:.Co~fil J~~~mgg~ly adopted a motion to direct
the City Manager to immediately begin a s"',~~i~'gh~Prior~i~.::~nitiat;~:WfTg:~iSCUSS a signable purchase
option on PeaceHealth property and tha!~~&g!her property:~~I~[:[fii the vicinity of 12th Avenue and
Willamette Street. The Manager;::$li6~~:~~p on the assistance of local private sector individuals
with real estate
pro2~ij~:::;:'~he agged that was being staffed by PDD, and
Ms.
underway.
III. PC
CHAMBERS INFILL/REDEVELOPMENT CODE
Mr. Yeiter distributed a map entitled Attachment C Proposed Revision to Map 9.3055 for S-C/C-2
Subarea, for inclusion in the agenda packet and today's discussion.
Mr. Lowe said following the July 26, 2005 public hearing, staff met several times with members of
Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN) to incorporate CAFHN's recommenda-
tions into the final draft. Gabe Flock and Mike McKerrow, PDD staff, met with CAPHN representative
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 26, 2005
Page 7
Paul Conte, to work through the final set of changes to the plan, all of which were reflected in the draft
code included in the agenda packet. The draft had been reviewed by the City Attorney represented by
Emlly Jerome at today's meeting. CAFHN submitted a letter, included in the agenda packet, dated
September 6,2005, supporting the standards in the draft code.
Mr. Lowe said the figures supporting the code were under revision, but not yet available. He said the
revised figures would accompany the draft code forwarded to the Ci~*::9gMnq!:,
. .... ',',".",V,',
Mr. Lowe said staff recommended that the Planning Commissio~~f9rward !:pcimb'rd~8~ to the City
Council establishing the Chambers Special Area Zone for adoPtid~il~i~~:::ia~ed thattli~::i~~!t~RJ~
'<:~~l~ls:.~~:(;::::..> "'~~:;:;:;:;~:;:;:;j~:i~:~:):-
Commission would need to make a specific recommendation on ~;~giifl:i,t~Wfti:2 Proposed [fiiVJmon to Map
9.3055 for S-C/C-2 Subarea. He asked that the Planning Commission m~k~1~~~g:cific r.~commendation
on the transportation improvements described in Attach'.1J.~'!!M~'!Rtft, and F oft~i~:1:5;:ggenda packet.
......
.".'.V';V.v.v"
Mr. Hledik asked for clarification of a statement onR~~~ II-ffcpara~~R~::~~::sentence 3, Staff recommends
~,',',',',"'.'.'.'.~.~.'.v.'.'.
'';<'-' '-........v.:.:...:.:.:.:-
that the standards be adoptedfor the Chamq.~~~!::~;rea:"but {~~~sses t{f~?lii~se standards should not be
viewed as a precedentfhr other residenM~~,~teas or MiXetl>':g~~:f4~h:ters.
;:::;., :;:;:;:~:~:~:~:,:~:~, "';::::::;:;:; :;:; :;::::: v.
,;".,<,-""."""",.,..'.'.....'.
.,.,.",..",,'..,.,.,........v.'.'.
....'.....'.........v.....'.....~..
Mr. Yeiter stated !!1~I~ii::it~~~i~~ili~~~ bee;::6~~~E~~~ upon a neighborhood outreach conducted in
the chamb~~,~:;~r~nd staff did;;E~~~f~t.nmend't~~~jth~y be used in other R-2, R-3 zoned neighbor-
hoods.~~:~~~ed that the specific nal~~?f the development pattern, development history, and the nature
of th~:lfifitl~~~~~l~pment within the la~!ibar in area resulted in this specific set of recommendations. As
discussed p;i'a~~ii~i~~::PubliC hearing~f~~li~ areas that requested R-2 reduced the allowed density based
upon a carrying c~P.~~~::~,;~dy f~~~::~~ lots in consideration. He added that the area was small enough
that the impact ofthe~H~~~~::B6tnpared to the maximum allowed density in the R-2 zone was not highly
significant through all of!:~g:'R-2, R-3, R-4 zoned areas. Thus, staffwas comfortable recommending the
proposed changes for this neighborhood based on the theory that reduction in allowable density for the
medium density areas was not impactful to the buildable land supply.
Mr. Yeiter said staff was concerned if these standards were assumed to be applicable to other residential
neighborhoods, because the development patterns, the history, and the quality of housing in other
neighborhoods may not warrant this type of process. Staff considered this to be part of an ongoing
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 26, 2005
Page 8
experimentation with MUCs, noting that other techniques may be more applicable in other scenarios. He
said the staff recommendation was to consider this as an experiment for this neighborhood.
Mr. Belcher expressed his appreciation to CAFHN for the great job they did. He noted that the
commission has been approached by other neighborhoods for similar work.
Mr. Yeiter replied that while the topic was appropriate for most neigh1?f!rhooW~, thedtscussion would
continue moving forward to the next joint meeting with the City Q~iiB2~'I:'~~ ol~~~t;~ity siting and its
'-~-~-"'''''-'''''~':'':'';':':':':;''
implications. Large neighborhoods were zoned for much higheda~;nsity th~n::thi~1t~~~~t:for MDCs. The
current zoning for residential neighborhoods allowed a steady in~~~;::!~:::~~iowabl;"Jii~~~8g;g~hse of
V^....'.-.-.-.-x-.-x-.-x.x'x'.
high level policy discussions that had not been resolved. ,,:':':::"'~~~';';;'<:..,.....
'.v
Mr. Lowe said this process was done under the umbrella.HE;~W9s, and stafflb~W:@:jlfproblems in a
specific area related to infill and redevelopment, Whig~;:bl~~~i~~~gi~~~~t th~ pn~~fg~s with the R-2 zone.
The R-2 zone existed in many areas outside ofMUG!i.~iFhe ~i2, Ri~ffi:;~~:1!t-4 zoning districts presented a
fundamental problem in that the design stan~~~:'ofth~'p~~~~~ set ~i::~li~:::bty Council and the design
standards established for those zones cr~~~~:i.conflicts. T~::~~!~::~as a structural problem that
demanded a review of:~::~;:+~:~~:.::~~~~ R~W':Z~l~~~::.~nd the assodated design standards, which arguably may
actually be missi~.~.::~Qm:.:tJm~~:::~~~~:.:~istri2m:::~~t::it;;~$!ed the unwanted problem to occur.
Mr. Lo~?:::~m?lored the Planning Co~%ion to refrain from establishing this pattern in other neighbor-
hoods;:~0tiH~tit~1'Qoking at what was re~tIY:.::broken, the R-2, R~3, and R-4 zoning districts.
,'," "~'~"~"~'~'~'~'~';-~'>;'>':">" ','.'.'.'..v
Mr. Belcher stat~d:l~~t.i~2.ile the.R~~posed was a generally well crafted solution, he feared this solution
............^..o^.y_..~.~.;.;_.,_ ,./..-,.-,
did not get to the cruX:'a@~t~:i~ue of design standards or site review. He added that the side effect of the
solution stated that the citl:~would treat this as an R-l zone without changing the zone. He noted that the
Planning Commission had been asked to address issues in the past that had been identified as having
minimal impact but almost always concluded with reducing zoning densities that resulted in defacto
zonmg.
Mr. Lowe said the Chambers Reconsidered process was done in good faith with CAFHN, and had
resulted in a product that not everyone may be comfortable with. In fact, design standards for a small
MINUTES- Eugene Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 26,2005
Page 9
enclave of houses were prescribed, and were not significant in terms of the overall city goals. He stated
that staff followed the direction of the Planning Commission to work with CAFHN to incorporate their
recommendations into the final draft ordinance.
Mr. Lowe said staff concurred with Mr. Belcher's assertion that a discussion about density needed to
occur. However, staff did not recommend that the Chambers Reconsidered plan be put on the shelf until
the issues were resolved, as those discussions would be significant and.have tmplications far beyond the
,<~~;;;:;;;:~;:::;:~;~ .';~;:;:;;;, -:;;;;;;:
Chambers Reconsidered plan. .........::..'. .............
, ',>.;..:.' ";":":":<'~';""""'.'~
,",>.y ',.:",;,,:,;,~, ',',' "
""""",','.',',,<',',
Mr. Lawless said it was important to look at this process as a ser~\~~:g~f~~meal i:~d@~i:~~gg~,;i~nsity
and neighborhood structure, transportation, and preservation of e~i~m~~~:;~;:ighbOrho~:;:g::WRis process
helped clarity what other work needs to be done. He stated the infiH statia~!t@~~ thi~:~eighborhood
were well crafted and needed to be considered a setting He agreed tfil~:j~~$1in experiment, and
much else remained to be done.
Gro'\\1h
In response to a question from Mr. Hledik,
said that the residential study indicated
high as 28 units per acre.
Mr. Lowe and Mr. Conte,
12 units per acre, and could go as
Mr. Belcher the density goal set under the
if incremental changes continued to occur.
VIew
that he could support, with the exception of protection of the
plan move forward in tandem the implementation of another
study that provided for increasing density through opportunity
code that created an
Mr. Lowe asked if Mr. Belcher's proposal meant bringing back the 1998 version of the Chan1bers Plan or
something like it where opportunity siting, as it was now called, was used to identify those areas in which
additional development densities could occur, as a starting point for a discussion. He added, in the study,
there were areas identified as those areas that would receive additional density.
MINUTES --- Eugene Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 26, 2005
Page 10
Mr. Belcher agreed that would be a starting point.
Mr. Sullivan said that taking action here would not necessarily create a good dovetail into an opportunity
siting discussion in the future. lfthe commission took action on this item, the City Council would likely
have a discussion on opportunity siting, and opportunity siting would be a good implementation measure
to compliment action taken today. Passing this on would be good progress on the Chambers issues in
general and a logical1ead in to a opportunity siting discussion and act~Bp.4p t1.:t~.futu.E.~.
. ":':':':":":":'"~':"~"""'''''''/
.'.:..:.;.:'.:..f.:.:..,.....".:.."."..
N.:.:.:..:..:..:.:....:..,v".".,.
..,..,.::...:.:v............'Y'h-
:..:.::.;...,.,........,."...ChAA.
Mr. Belcher said Mr. Sullivan's suggestion was too vague and h~ijwanted tl].e;'p1an:;~imQve forward with
an opportunity siting study:{::;:f\;:i:::..c:::::p?:;' ':::::::gg:g:::.~::.. g~
, . :::::.:.~.:::~~:i::~~r~i~igihc<:i':f:~;::~::::::::::::
',','.' """>:':':'>:':'~<;:'>
Mr. Lawless said the necessary discussion was a much broader on~ that ~~ilij;llflve city.wide implica.
-_....,,'.'.'.','...
hons. How it would be applied to various areas was goi~~.:~~:.~~e a long time;::~~::!1e:saw it as an
additive component that helped move towards higheiii:r~'nSit;~~\~\~:;~~t d\tras#Br subtract from the
progress made in the Chambers Reconsidered c?mp~~~t. ~i~rl1e 6~~iii~hanism to find reasonable
ways to achieve density goals in addition to gg~~xt Sp~~if~~;j~as ve~;;itpp~opriate.
"",'" ',",".'.. .'.'.'.','.'.'
...'...'.'.'...'.'.'.'.'.~.~.~.'.
.',',','
..',',.....,...."...'...'.....'.'.,.,.'
Mr. Hledik said he w:~~bee~'Jh:s no prQvi~';or infill development oflot, that were
back to back or sig~::~9:::~i$g:j~~::~fi~t:~::.:vas no:p~g~i~!~m tp allow for adjustment or elimination the wider
setbacks or ~2:gtg~:::::hen they di~Ffi~~~I~~L any i~~~tgt~ existing development.
Mr. ~J6mg~~~;~~d this was part of~1~Jot aggregation piece. The ordinance intentionally did not
afford any de~~~::~;~Xibility that ::~~ssed neighborhood concerns about the pattern of existing
development and'g.i~~~!I&;,lots, ans!,:ifi~ character they represented.
...::::; ~ :;::;: :;::~::.~,~~:;: ::. ~. :;:::: :::: >,'
Mr. Yeiter added that the jpfent was to have new development follow the old pattern.
Mr. Hledik asserted the proposed language represented a missed opportunity to densify in a manner that
protected the adjacent users.
Mr. Duncan concurred with Mr. Hledik, citing successful projects in older neighborhoods in Bend,
Oregon, where lot assemblage had created projects that blended very well in the existing neighborhood.
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 26, 2005
Page II
Such built~in flexibility in the code that could be beneficial was missing from the current plan.
Mr. Lowe stated that lot aggregation and partitions, how lots were created, was fundamental part of
CAFIIN's issue base. Aggregation was a staff concern.
Mr. Lawless understood a good portion of the concept was to preserve internal areas and the perimeter of
the CAFHN area. He had no problem keeping the fine grain of the
existed.
sited lot aggregation as an example.
/h'h'
....................................,'....
and scale as it
Mr. Yeiter said the ordinance treated density and the physical
leaving opportunities to add some limited density, i.e., no more
fell within the structures and lot lines that fit the old pattern.
they
Mr. Nystrom said some nagging issues remained,
regarding what the Planning Commission would
to the City Council
through the experiment. He
,::::::':::::::::';::::::.
Mr. Duncan stated it woul.~th!l:ye been:hetl'~~~?! him if how plan fit with the GMS policy would
have been eXPla~~~~;:~~:::~~~i~l~i:i~ii:~~~~t:~e of::fi~~~~~h~~p.osal fit within all 19 of the policies. This type
of documenta:~~gnwould provide:~IR:::~9.~. P1annin~W:ofumission and the City Council a better feel of how
..... . c,. ,........
'-"bY.- ..:.~.:,,;.:":",.;.:,...:v, ......
this fit in19i.me big picture. He added)~~! although it may be necessary to reexamine these actions in five
'.'h'''''".'.Y''''"''''' .,..:......;.......,.
or te!fye~~~i~~:.~ay never come ba~~f:Although everyone wanted to revisit refinement plans ten years
ago, the Chaili~!~:::~~~onsidered proi~~f has served somewhat as a refinement plan for this area.
Mr. Lowe stated that rt:f!~~~'t::'Plan review was part of the department's on-going work program issues,
and returning to establish~~f;plans went to availability of resources.
Mr. Nystrom said this process would be looked back upon as an experiment, to consider what worked
and what did not work.
Ms. Muir said that the state transportation plan had reporting requirements whereby the City of Eugene
had to report its accomplishments under this program to the State of Oregon. She added the most recent
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 26,2005
Page 12
report had been submitted within the last two years.
Mr. Belcher said this proposal failed to meet the needs of the neighbors related to the issue of viewing
into backyards. Dormers had not been adequately addressed. The proposed language allowed for two
side dormers on the back half of the property, each ten feet wide, with no limit on glazing or balconies.
This created a situation where people perch and look over into neighbor's backyards.
Mr. Lawless stated that the code contained mandatory second floor
language.
Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr.
side dormers, and that the
and one-half feet from the floor
balconies in
Mr. Belcher
Mr. Lawless' correction. The
options, including landscaping was
available to
Mr.
use during the discussion.
The
and code issues related to balconies.
Mr. Duncan opined Commission was attempting to intensify living in an area. v,,'hen
people chose to live in they chose not to have 100 percent privacy. The commission was
attempting to find a that would allow people to use their homes and enjoy the outdoor spaces.
While creating some screening, it was not possible to guarantee total privacy. Comer lots were
particularly problematic. He proposed having a discussion about how balconies were created rather than
completely taking away that option.
Mr. Belcher said the code was designed to protect privacy, thus it was appropriate to deal with privacy
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 26, 2005
Page 13
Issues. Additionally, his motion would not preclude balconies on the back of houses, or in the first 60
feet.
Mr. Lowe said it was important to note that CAFHN submitted a letter in which it agreed with the
standards proposed and was not seeking additional privacy provisions. This was a negotiated outcome
between CAFI-IN and PDD staff
N.....'
In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Lowe said secon~.:~6t':~~ico~t~l.::~~~e currently allowed
in the code, as modified by the provisions in the draft code lang~.r,' Hes~.utiori~,:.~~t:..~ommis~ion that
v///.'.'.'.v. ....,.;.:;.:;:. ....................,.,.,.", ~,'-
it was running risks in conducting quick analyses on such a compli.j5i.~~#e: '''::;;??:;:;:;~i':::;::.:,~-.;~~
Mr. Nystrom said there were allowances in the code for encroachments, aR~~~i,R~d th~t some level of
encroachment would be allowed, although it needed to the overall ~fi~i1~~C
.'-".,...;-.........+.+
.....;..............;,
interior yard setback.
Mr. Flock said balconies were not an expressly
The mq!~~!fEfailed, 1:4,
missi9%~ij:i~f:tcan, Hledik,
Belcher voting in favor, and com-
and Lawless voting in opposition.
.'.'...'.'.'.'.-.-.-.-...-.;.;.;.;.;.;.,?,.,.../.........-,
''<''-''-'-';';';';';';';-;-;-......-,.....,-....,".'>',
"",';',',.,..',y,',>,",
V,V,',',V,',,,,,v.v...,,v.'.
Mr. Belcher si.tj;d;CAFHN raised^tli~2:QQ~t that th~:~~~p~sed ordinance would allow uses not currently
allowed;..~~~~sked how Ballot Me~i~~:7 woul&~Pply. Ms. Jerome explained the balance and net
effect-^~w8ij'taj~:taken into considerati&h:::[h a determination.
';<<<<,-<v.,-<v.','.','. ','.'.V.V"
.,.~<v,'-<'-<'-<"..~"........ >>;.;.;<;.;.
<-<.,.,'-<".'-<'-<v.......v. ..,....v;.
.<':':.:-:..~-:.'-<'-<v.v.oo
.~<':-,/.'~"j~.~'-<v.VA
y..".,:'~<<.:.<..?'.'.>...
In response to M~5ij~l~l~[:~. Mr. ~#om stated the prohibition of development in alleys as well as other
provisions could poss15J:~;~~~~}~gZVed if the new code was adopted.
Mr. Lowe explained that the map distributed at the beginning of the meeting identified commercial
properties, including the property represented by Jim Spickerman who submitted testimony at the public
hearing as well as other commercial properties that had the same characteristics. Staff recommended tbat
the properties identified on the map be removed from the C~2 zone. He added that the figures on the
maps were under revision, and asked that the Planning Commission give some indication of its support
for or arguments against adoption of the staff recommendation on the map as part of its recommendation
MINUTES ~ Eugene Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 26, 2005
Page 14
for approval.
Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to deny approval of this
code unless it was matched with a concurrent opportunity zoning deci-
sion in the same area of Eugene. The motion failed, 2:3, commissioners
Belcher and Duncan voting in favor, and commissioners, Hledik,
Hudspeth, and Lawless voting in :ii~i%~l~?n;~~~,:,:,::,,::..,~,w
Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. H~~llpeth, m\;rv.~d't8~~~~ommend that the
City Council approve the draft 2~~.g~Ffkeconsi~:~~W;~~~,.~end-
ments and zone change proPOSal~j,:~~\~~~~~~;~d in Atta~iili~ihf'~, and the
recommended transportation improvemdi'f~:~i~~gr.ibed ,i,!1 Attachments D,
E, and F, as well as the revisions i~"~~~i~}jffi~nt C distributed
during the
with the plan, but because
a bigger problem of addressing
Mr. Belcher said he would vote against the
he felt it was not the only way to deal
density issues for the cifJ,',.~;~,,~~~ole.
>...>.....~.....,...,>,>.'.V.^.Yh'^"^V..',
'..;...);.......,.....,>...'.^.^.y.tV'A'>."',.,v/.'.'...
....;.;.........;.........".v...^...:."""'>;x:x;.:.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;b
...;...;....-..-..........u.^.^.^-".."""'''>:.;.:.;.;.;.;.:.;.;.;.:..:,:.:.:.:.',
";':';';';';-;';"""'V".v..."",,:<_:-:.-.:.v.v.'.','.;.'.:.:.:.;.;.;.;.:.~,
..........y.^.. .~.v.'.'.'.'......;.....;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.>
........;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;...
Mr. Hledik s~~,~,Swhile recognizirig{'~~~~flcher's he would vote in favor of the proposal. He
said in b~l~~ping neighborhood and d~~~Fter against density increases, the proposal favored
neigl1p6ffi~~~mxservation. He was cQBf~med about the ability to increase density in terms of lot
aggregation ii1~.i~~!n ofredeveloPn.l~tof areas in the future. He asked that commissioners' comments
be forwarded to tB:e:::g!~:,~ouncil.:~:~~~"
.;.;';.;';';';';';';"""'.'>. _...."-'.'.','
.:';.:';';';';';';';';'';'''-'.'.'.'.V
';';';';'.;';'.i.;';';';';",^",,,-,
In response to Mr. DuncadPMs. Muir said staff would forward his request to the City Council that
analyses of the city's growth management policies accompany the draft ordinance, to help explain what
the tradeoft's were in decisions related to the ordinance. Mr. Duncan added that although he had some
reservations about the proposal, he would vote to support the motion. He also supported addressing the
R-2 issue, but did not want to hold up this ordinance until the R~2 issue was resolved.
Mr. Lowe added that all of the growth management policies were inc luded as part of the findings for the
MINUTES _n Eugene Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 26, 2005
Page 15
proposed ordinance.
The motion passed, 1 :4, commissioners Duncan, Hledik, Hudspeth, and
Lawless voting in favor, and commissioner Belcher voting in opposition.
Mr. Belcher said he had some questions related to building heights that had been raised by the CAFHN
group.
Ms. Muir said this had not been raised as a c,?:;~~~de
that had been raised by the public, notin.;~~~g~~ the issue
the
Mr. Nystrom said height was measured in a variety of ways in
ridgeline was used when measuring, which provided more
Mr. Lowe said it was the commission's prerogative to initiate a
Mr. Belcher asked to have the issue flagged for
had a list of over 200 issues
to the list.
consistency
in ili~i:i~~~~~~:~$}Jt measurement when trying to maintain some
zon~~;i[~i'€iluse it allowed greater flexibility without layers of
R-2 zoning had become very problematic should be
communicated to
noting that the current objective was to move this project through the
were certain issues that needed more discussion.
Mr. Lawless opined that opportunity siting and achieving density goals could be added to discussions
with council buddies. He reminded commissioners to forward their description of opportunity siting to
Mr. Yeiter for the October 26,2005 joint meeting with the City Council.
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 26, 2005
Page 16
IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
Addressed previously in the meeting.
Commissioners thanked staff and CAFI-IN for their work on the
B. Other Items from Commission
Mr. Lawless adjourned the Planning Commission
(Recorded by Linda Henry)
m: \2005!planlling alld development
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 26. 2005
Page 17