The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 5: Public Hearing on Ordinance Establishing Chambers Special Area Zone ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Public Hearing: 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 through 9.3065 to That Code; Amending the Eugene Zoning Map; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Meeting Date: November 14, 2005 Agenda Item Number: 5 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Allen Lowe www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5113 ISSUE STATEMENT The City Council will hold a public hearing on the Draft Chambers Special Area Zone and on the application of that zone to properties within the boundaries of the zone on November 14, 2005. Public comments on the draft proposals will be heard on that date with deliberation and possible action on the proposals to follow on December 12, 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. This project, known as Chambers Reconsidered, builds on earlier efforts to implement mixed use (nodal) development in an existing built-out neighborhood. The project has resulted in development of 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 in the 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. The Chambers project has focused on removing barriers to implementation of the mixed use development concept that is central to Eugene’s growth and transportation management strategy. Previous planning efforts for this area in 1999 (Chambers Node Development Plan) and 2002 L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051114\S0511145.doc (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. The consultant team that worked on this project included Rowell Brokaw Architecture, Ron Kellett from the University of British Columbia, and transportation consultants PTV America. 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. A noteworthy element of this project is the amount of citizen participation in the drafting of the final product. During the course of the study, a core group of area 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, has been placed in the City Council office for review. 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. The City Council held a work session on this project on October 12, 2005. 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 the area affected by this proposal. Adopted Metro Plan and refinement plan policies relevant to this project are discussed in the draft ordinance Attachment A, Exhibit B. The adopted Growth Management Policies have strongly influenced the direction and outcome of this project. These policies are not standards or criteria to be applied to any specific decision. Rather, they are guiding principals adopted by the City Council to advise staff and the City Manager of the direction the council wishes to proceed with respect to growth. Applicable Growth Management Policies are discussed below: GMS 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 . The proposed amendments support this policy. The amendments provide for an increase in residential densities in areas zoned S-C/R-1 and S-C/R-2 through new provisions for compatible development on L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051114\S0511145.doc alleys and in the rear yards of lots that are already developed. The increased densities achieved through infill provide for the efficient use of urban land. GMS Policy #2. Encourage in-fill, 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. GMS Policy #4. Improve the appearance of buildings and landscapes . The proposed amendments support this policy. The S-C/R-2, S-C/R-1 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. GMS Policy #6. Increase density of new housing development while maintaining the character and livability of individual neighborhoods . 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 of the East Traditional Neighborhood that lies within the study area. GMS Policy #8. Promote construction of affordable housing . 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 within the study area. GMS 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. The proposed amendments support this policy. The proposed residential development standards are designed to mitigate the impacts of infill housing and new higher density housing on the neighborhood. The development standards include design standards that limit building mass and bulk, 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. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051114\S0511145.doc GMS Policy #10. Encourage the creation of transportation-efficient land use patterns and implementation of nodal development concepts. The proposed amendment supports this policy. The Chambers Special Area zone boundaries are identified by the Metro Plan for potential creation of a mixed use (nodal) 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. COUNCIL OPTIONS This is a public hearing. No action is requested at this time. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Not applicable at this time. SUGGESTED MOTION Not applicable at this time. ATTACHMENTS A. 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 through 9.3065 to That Code; Amending the Eugene Zoning Map; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date B. Staff Memorandum: Response to Council Questions C. Testimony Submitted Before November 7, 2005 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\M051114\S0511145.doc 09/16/05 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 and created from the rear portion of an existing lot or parcel. 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 may or 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 [any 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 Establishment and List of Zones. The zones listed in Table 9.1030 Zones are established as follows: Table 9.1030 Zones Broad Zone CategoryZone Special S-C Chambers Special 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 infill, 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 Requirements. 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 Purpose 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, “residential 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 Flag 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 09/16/05 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 a 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 Dwellings. In lieu of conflicting provisions in EC 9.2750 to 9.2777 for secondary dwellings in the R-1 zone, in the S-C/R-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 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-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 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. (3) Development Standards Applicable in S-C/R-2 Subarea. Except as provided in this subsection, the development standards applicable in the S-C/R-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) Building 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 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 facade 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 at least 5 feet. b. An interior yard setback, or a segment of an interior yard setback: (1) For a lot with street access where the interior yard setback is not adjacent to an alley; and (2) 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 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 12 feet above grade, the setback shall slope at the rate of 10 inches vertically Ordinance - 5 09/16/05 for every 12 inches horizontally (approximately 50 degrees from vertical) away from the lot line. See 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 allowed by EC 9.6745 (“Setbacks- Intrusions Permitted”), 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 lot line. See Figure 9.3065(3)(b)2.e., Interior Yard Setbacks (Gables). 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 Ordinance - 6 09/16/05 measured between the sidewalls or 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 Building Standards. In lieu of conflicting development standards in this code for residential buildings Ordinance - 7 09/16/05 within the R-2 zone, residential buildings shall comply with the following standards: 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) Garage and Accessory Buildings Standards. In lieu of conflicting standards in this code applicable to garage and accessory buildings within the R-2 zone, the following 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 alley, 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. Ordinance - 8 09/16/05 (f) Driveway Standards. In lieu of conflicting standards in this code applicable to driveway and curb cut requirements within the R-2 zone, the following standards apply: 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 (f) may be adjusted based on the criteria of EC 9.8030(21)(e). (g) Alley 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 property line 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. Ordinance - 9 09/16/05 5. Alley access lots are permitted, subject to the development standards of this section. 6. Flag lots are not permitted. 7. The following special limitations shall apply: 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) Adjacent Lot Development. Developments that span 2 or more adjacent lots must meet standards for each individual lot (e.g. density, setbacks, etc.). (j) Vehicle Use Area. The total vehicle use area shall not exceed 20 percent of the lot size. (4) Development Standards Applicable in the S-C/C-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) Height 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 Adjustment Review – Approval 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. Ordinance - 10 09/16/05 (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 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 all of 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) Driveway 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 Ordinance - 11 09/16/05 structures on the lot, joint driveway access, and existing mature landscaping. 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, including 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 S-C Chambers Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. (gh) EC 9.3105 S-CN Chase Node Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. (hi) EC 9.3205 S-DW Downtown Westside Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. (ij) EC 9.3305 S-E Elmira Road Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. (jk) 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 Siting Requirements. (mn) EC 9.4205 /EC East Campus Overlay Zone Siting Requirements. (no) EC 9.4715 /WP Waterside Protection Overlay Zone Siting Requirements. (op) EC 9.4815 /WB Wetland Buffer Overlay Zone Siting Requirements. (pq) 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)(c)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 Ordinance - 12 09/16/05 (Intrusions), 9.3065(3)(b)2.f. Interior Yard Setbacks (Dormers), and 9.3065(3)(b)3., Interior Yard Setbacks (Windows), as referenced in this Ordinance are attached hereto, to be numerically incorporated in Chapter 9 of the 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 Attorney, 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 shall 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 ____________, 2005 ____ day of _______________, 2005 _______________________________ _________________________________ City Recorder Mayor Ordinance - 13 Map 9.3055 ~ 5 -( ( hambers 5 pecial Area Zone and 5 ubareas ~ . '~""~-- ,...,,~ , . : , ' ! I ': fj , th Ave . , : ; . .....' . ... ,:'~; ..... . : .. U1 " : : ! ' " ~ .. . . '. I'" ( . , : , ..... , Ave ! , , I ] i'th, . . ~'. ,. . S-C I ~ Z : ' . ill~ r-- ,'" .. I l- n- . '.~. . 8th Ave / R 1 H f I~ - , - ',... l .1 -'I II~~ I '-- ~ C'~ ~ []J]]]lJ I I-- r-r- :~' . r-r- SNfW3 l-J '-- , ~:i ,... - - ;I~ .~ I -----I i IL .1 : 1/ I 1 I ., 12th Ave &...;;;;;;;;; . ,I,.... I II .... I - I ::. ". - I .. ..., ., T - . .'.....,. - - 11th AVl II . '. ~:} : ~ii~: ~ 1 ~th Ii \/0. . ....... .. L. .... V'l , ; . , . .. ~ '. . . ..... ~ '.': :~ I . Q) . '~..' ..:r:, ......,...., '~"'" .0 ~ : .......... E III .....,,'. . ~~)4lh ,ve ,. .. '" 6 . '.., .... .. '. " ,.~ ! '. ". j II ... "''', .... ....i i,. :. 14th Avp C Chambers Special Area Zone Boundary I S-C/R-1 ~ Low Density Residential ] t)I::I.~cll\.:~l Medium Density Residential Areas affected by ....... - Community Commercial proposed zone change N Figure 9.3065(2)(c)1 Alley Open Space 5'-0" -----J..----.J. Interior 'I i Setback : . . ~ ~" I' Interior Setback 5'-0" -----J..----.J. Interior : Setback : ~ ~" : Interior I Setback Structure Structure ~ 9 o ..... ~ ';> -. :~~ I.' ._._.___.____' t= 56'-0" Property Width EXAMPLE A ~ oQal _I ......c 11.O.l!:l a5 .. .E. C/) -- 0>. -' (J) '<t= .....<( -{-- ~ o.Qal _I Q5-B . 1.0_ Q) : lE. C/) --- n --- -tnt.. . -------' -- -,/'20'-0" MAdr- = D. 0 >. nveway .;. ~ - -. 56':0-;;-Prop~rty :~;~. - -{ ~ EXAMPLE B 5'.0" ---J---J.. Interior 'I Setback , ~ ~" i I' Interior i ' Setback Required Open Space >= 400 SF Structure ~ - ... U 0211l . ....0 lio~~ .. .. .-.---- I -- 14'-0" dO>' ____~50/~ Of.Lot ~id~~._ ~~ 56'-0" Property Width EXAMPLE C Figure 9.3065(3)(b)2.b Interior Yard Setbacks (Front) Iw 'Z I:J ,>- I~ 'W 10.. ,0 a: 0.. g...<> vf.,' , ~",<lI~, ~o~~~ , fo.~~ ((;<> , ~ o~, ~v, , ( I I I " 12 """ 110 " " " " ". I .t I Iw 'Z I:J '~ Ia: 'W 10.. ,0 a: 0.. v 12' (WITHIN 60' OF STREET PROPERTY LINE.) 5'-0" INTERIOR YARD SETBACK GROUND PLANE 1 ! 1 FRONT SECTION I ELEVATION DIAGRAM ",""'""'"7".. .".....,"\.,...... I" "'""'" ',\'C" I" ............ "',',, I " A"'""'" ,',' \\ --+--- .... \ ,",' ->~-: :;---- " \ _-r"'_--- - ''--:>1<:-- ----~, - ~'-- '~~ l. --~ ........ _.-..:-~- ---:-:'-:-"'~"'" I \ .-..:----;...\ "'""'"----_.---:--~ .- AdJ'acent Lot >. -'::: - - "'" "'" "'" I"'""'" -;;''' :=-:::::: I . ...-- "'""'" ",""'".- ._ --",--:-...-, ",..... ........."",....",.".. I _' ~_~ ""'" "'""'" _. J-:'''-:>~~ r-I "'" -:::::..-" .........-- ..."""... ...... I "'":::>-. ~-- - - - ........."",.... ~._. _ 12'. I ",""'";::..-" --. -- .1 ---- ....:;=-----s.....",..,.... 01 Street Sid~ .--:p---';'.-. Property Line - Interior Yard Sloped Setback at "Side" Property Line Adjacent Lot PERSPECTIVE DIAGRAM Figure 9.3065(3)(b )2.c Interior Yard Setbacks (R ea r) Iw 'Z I:J '~ Ia: 'W 10.. ,0 a: a.. .... , v ~<:> v~." 12 R-'}<b~' '~10 ~o.<:> Cj , , ~-<.~~l~ , , ~,,o , , 7' , , , r ..... I t I I GROUND PLANE Iw 'Z I:J .~ Ia: 'W 10.. ,0 a: a.. 8' (NOT WITHIN 60' OF STREET PROPERTY LINE.) 5'-0" INTERIOR YARD SETBACK 1 ! I REAR SECTION I ELEVATION DIAGRAM / Interior Yard Sloped Setback At "Rear" Interior _ - -7' Property Line .".....,,'........ I'" _- , ,,'C" I'" ............ ;"~; \, I ...... ""........ ,.',,' '" ~.....+--- " , . ,,',' _>~- I --____ ... , \ " ~~ \.~ 1.__ ---.....---f , \ ~~~(/~~~~~ '- ,,:>k::::::: -";"'- I , --~ I.~ __.~~I..--.:--. __- I 8' , --~- \ .---.~~~~ \" --..;;:a:-':-b--d L"""'" , ~,; ........ ----. ...... Ad' tL t IF- ,,----~:::::-~~~~ ---.....1-- ---";'" .>c:-_- jacen 0 ._...~- __ __ __ "_ ...,.,.. _f#l-' .... .... .."".,. I .. "-.::: _ -... " .... -- .... .... .... .::......."".,. ~..;:::-....-- I .... -:..................... ......."'-..... .......... ..' I -:::>-- ............. .... .... ............ ~--.. .. I ........;:;............. ........"'-- ....~............... O' Street Side "-"-.~.-- Property Line "- Adjacent Lot Note: Interior Slope Setback Is Not Applicable To Interior Yards On Alleys. See EC 9.3065(3)(b)2.a. PERSPECTIVE DIAGRAM Figure 9.3065(3)(b )2.e Interior Yard Setbacks (Gables) , '-~ #~ , r I , 1./ ~ ...., ~~ ". ...~ " ........ PERMITTED GABLE ROOF INTRUSIONS Gable Roof May Intrude Interior Yard Sloped Setback No More Than 35' In Width, Figure 9.3065(3)(b )2. f Interior Yard Setbacks ( Dormers) ..."'" " , ,~/ \, ,'// \, ,..,",' / \, ,,~, ' , ,'...///,,,,'" \, " ...... )( \, \, ,. , /;' ",/ '\ '\ \, " / " " , , , , -'- ,~ '--_-_-'_~ I /, ---,-_--.1.... " - - -.l '> ,..... ,. , " , , , ,/ ~/ r I I , "A"'- '" ,././ , , "". ~. ~- //,'/. ..:' __ I //'/ " /" '-'_ 1// " ". '-'_ -__ I,' ". .--............. --.....' "". --..--...........,,"""".. PERMITTED DORMER INTRUSIONS Two Dormers May Intrude Into Interior Yard Sloped Setback (No More Than 1 0' Wide Per Dormer). The Dormers Must Be Setback A Minimum Of 2' From Nearest Parallel Outer Wall. Figure 9.3065(3)(b )3 Interior Yard Setbacks (Windows) 10'-0" Setback To Exterior Surface Of Upper level Windows 10'-0" Setback To Exterior Surface Of Upper level Windows t-s'-o" . EXAMPLE A +-s'.o" . EXAMPLE B EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. Legislative Findings CA 04-5 and Z 05- 14 Establishment of the Special Area Zone 9.3020 Criteria for Establishment of an S Soecial Area Zone. Before adopting an ordinance establishing a S Special Area Zone, 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 identified in the Metro Plan or a refinement plan as appropriate for 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 rehabilitation. 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 natural features that have been identified by the city as worthy of special treatment or preservation. The Chambers area meets criterion (l)(a) above. This area is identified as area 1.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 implementation of the planned use of the 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 infill development within the neighborhood. (3) Except for areas zoned S-H Historic Special Area zone, the area to be classified S Special Area includes at least ~ acre in area. Exhibit A-I The proposed amendment meets this criterion. The area included in the S-C Special Area Zone is 81 acres in size. (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 Chanf!e Approval Criteria. Approval of a zone change application, including the designation of an overlay zone, shall not be approved unless it meets all of the following criteria: . (1) The proposed change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The written text of the Metro Plan shall take 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. Applicable Metro Plan Policies Residential Densitv Policv A-9 "Establish density ranges in local zoning and development regulations that are consistent with the broad density categories 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 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. High density. Over 20 dwelling units per gross acre (could translate to over 28.56 units per net acre depending on each jurisdiction's implementation 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 developme1].t; 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 Densitv Policv A-10. "Promote higher residential density inside the urban growth boundary that utilizes existing infrastructure, improves the efficiency of public services and facilities, and conserves rural resource lands outside the urban growth boundary. " The proposed amendments are consistent with this policy. Infill 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-ll. "Generally locate higher density residential development near employment or commercial services, in proximity to major transportation systems or within 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 Densitv Policv 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. " 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. Residential Densitv Policv 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 Policv A-15. "Develop a wider 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 Housin/l Tvpes and Tenure Policv A-17 "Provide 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 Housin/l Tvpes and Tenure Policv A-20 "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 Desi/ln and Mixed Use Policv A-23 "Reduce impacts of higher density residential and mixed use development on surrounding uses by considering 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 infill 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 form and character of new development by addressing the site, the landscape in which new buildings will be placed, and the architectural details of those new buildings. Residential Desi/ln and Mixed Use Policv A-24 "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 compatibility, aesthetics, open space, 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 Policv F.l Apply nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that have identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land 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. Transportation Policv F.2 Support application of the nodal development strategy in designated areas through information, 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 mixed use area The Chambers Reconsidered process supported the application of the strategy through the development and dissemination of information and the provision of technical assistance. Transportation Policv F.3. 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 * 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. The proposed amendments support this policy. The area is served by several transit routes to the north on 8th Avenue and to south on 11 th 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. Transportation Policv FA. Require improvements that encourage transit, bicycles, and pedestrians in new commercial, public, mixed-use, and multi-unit 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 Policv F.5 Within three years of Trans Plan 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 ~e necessary to fully implement the policy. Exhibit A - 5 (2) The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinement plans. In the event ofinconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan controls. Westside Neillhborhood Plan Policies 2. Support improving existing housing 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. The 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 11th Avenue." 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. The 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 oflarger multi-family residential complexes, such as apartment buildings, within that portion ofthe 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. Jefferson Far West Refinement Plan Policies Residential Policv 1. 0 "Encourage both public and private actions that will improve the overall appearance of the area and the condition of 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, fa<;ade Exhibit A - 6 orientation, garage location and driveway width are all directed at improving the character and appearance of new residential construction. Residential Policv 2.0 "Increase the opportunity for home ownership within the area." · Reduce minimum lot size for ownership · Encourage new res. Develop that provide opportunity for home ownership · Explore ownership opportunities that might be available to persons 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 diverse population group to live within the area. " 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 will 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 non-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-Densitv Residential Area (Broadwav to 1 rf' west of Chambers) "The City shall continue to recognize the area as suitable for low-density 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 units and yet maintain the character of the area, the 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. " Exhibit A - 7 The proposed amendments support this policy. The area remains suitable for low-density housing. New development standards applicable to the S-C/R-I 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. Central Low-Densitv Residential Area, (1 jh -1 th, Garfield to Chambers) "The low- density designation recognizes existing residential development and land uses. The City shall continue to recognize the residential character of the area and provide incentives for public and private rehabilitation of rundown structures. In addition, the 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. (3) The uses and density that will be 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 zone in: (a) EC 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 EC 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. Exhibit A - 8 Code Amendment 9.8065 Code Amendment Aooroval Criteria. If the city council elects to act, it may, by ordinance, adopt an amendment to this land use code that: (1) Is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals as adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Goal] - Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the 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: · Pro;ect 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 announcing the project and the first project meeting. The notices were mailed to more than 1700 addresses within the study area as well as to several hundred other interested parties who live outside of the study area but who requested notification. . Pro;ect Newsletters Following 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. . BackJ!round Information. Maps and Pro;ect Information. All background maps produced for the 1998 Existing Conditions Report were updated to show current conditions 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 tour of the neighborhood. We began by following the tour map but responded to participants suggestions to view other buildings that were not on the tour route. . NeiJ!hborhood Meetings. Five general neighborhood meetings were held; one each in September, October and November and two in April. Meeting attendance grew from about 20 to nearly 50 participants by November and remained fairly constant throughout the remainder of the project. The September neighborhood meeting was held to explain the project, field questions and stimulate discussion; the October and November meetings were dedicated to conducting and translating the Neighborhood Design Preferences Exhibit A - 9 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 Survey 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 of physical characteristics. The images can be standardized for multiple presentations or customized to focus on a unique set of conditions. Surveys can be done citywide, as was done in the 1994 TransPlan process, or for 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 of the traditional 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 context of a stated topic. All images in the slide show were identified as having a theme or topic ("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 on November 16. The results presentation was formatted to identify tentative "conclusions" reached by the consultants, while allowing the group to comment on those conclusions. Sometimes the group added new information; sometimes they corrected the consultant's 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 staffthat 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 forward 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 form was distributed at the November neighborhood meeting, was posted on the City's Mixed Use Development web site 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. Exhibit A-I 0 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 on 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 all 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 Postinfls. All materials relating to this project have been posted on the Planning and Development Department Mixed Use Development website Therefore, the process followed is consistent with Goal 1. Goal 2 - Land Use PlanninI!. To establish 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 governmental unit and when the City uses the information 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 all ofthe affected governmental units [i.e. "those local governments, state and federal agencies and special districts which have programs, land ownerships, or responsibilities within the area included in the plan.''] 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 planning 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. Exhibit A-II Goal 3 - Aericultural 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 - Forest Lands. To con serve 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. Scenic and Historic Areas. and Natural Resources. To conserve open 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 Goal 5 resource site and do not amend the acknowledged UGB. Therefore, Goal 5 does not apply. Goal 6 - Air. Water and land Resource Oualitv. To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. 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 including 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. Exhibit A - 12 The amendments do not impact the supply of industrial or commercial lands. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 9. Goal 1 0 - HousinJ!. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. The amendments do not impact the supply of residential lands. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal I O. Goal 11- Public 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 provlSlon of public facilities and servIces. Therefore, Goal 11 does not apply. Goal 12- Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Transportation Planning Rule (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 with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility.... (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 afunctional 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 performance 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 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 reduce the performance standards of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP. Goal 13 - EnerflV Conservation. To conserve energy. The amendments do not concern energy conservation. Therefore, Goal 13 does not apply. Exhibit A - 13 Goal 14 - Urbanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. The amendments do not affect the City's provisions regarding the transition ofland from rural to urban uses. Therefore, Goal 14 does not apply. Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenwav. 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 15 does not apply. Goal 16: Estuarine Resources, Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands, Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes, and Goal 19: 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. Applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and adopted refinement plans are addressed above. (3) In the case of establishment of a special area zone, is consistent with EC 9.3020 Criteria for Establishment of an S Special Area Zone. The criteria at EC 9.3020 are addressed above. Exhibit A - 14 Exhibit B Chambers Special Area Zone Subject to Zone Change ! Tax Lot ! Current Zone I Proposed Zone I Owner I 1704362105600 C-2 S-C/C-2 KIEFER JOHN P II & CORINNE R 1704362105500 C-2 S-C/C-2 HAMMER JOHN P 1704361213200 C-2 S-C/C-2 MARSHALL JAMES D & LAURA C 1704361214100 C-2 S-C/C-2 MARSHALL JAMES D & LAURA C 1704361214200 C-2 S-C/C-2 COLTRIN LEWIS TE 1704361214900 C-2 S-C/C-2 ORCHARD DONALD L TE 1704361215000 C-2 S-C/C-2 RODE GEORGE 1704361215700 C-2 S-C/C-2 LEE DAVID E 1704361216000 C-2 S-C/C-2 KALBERER COMPANY 1704361216300 C-2 S-C/C-2 ROPCHAN GEORGE & WILMA W 1704361216400 C-2 S-C/C-2 PRICHARD DENNIS R 1704361216500 C-2 S-C/C-2 PRICHARD DENNIS R 1704361217600 C-2 S-C/C-2 LEHNER JOACHIM J & KARIN 1704361219100 C-2 S-C/C-2 WELLS FARGO BANK 1704361215100 C-2 S-C/C-2 BRYSON THEODORE J 1704361216600 C-2 S-C/C-2 PRICHARD DENNIS R 1704362105700 C-2 S-C/C-2 KIEFER JOHN P II & CORINNE R 1704361216100 C-2 S-C/C-2 NWH PROPERTIES LLC 1704361216900 C-2 S-C/C-2 PRICHARD DENNIS R 1704361217000 C-2 S-C/C-2 AUKERMAN ROBERT W & JULIE D 1704362105800 C-2 S-C/C-2 GEIDIS HOLDING INC 1704361216200 C-2 S-C/C-2 RAPPAPORT RICHARD I 1704362401901 C-2 S-C/C-2 PEARSON COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES LLC 1704362401900 C-2 S-C/C-2 SPICER JAMES I 1704362402000 C-2 S-C/C-2 SPICER JAMES I 1704362402100 C-2 S-C/C-2 WOOD TECH SERVICES 1704362410400 C-2 S-C/C-2 SPROAT CHERYL A TE 1704362410500 C-2 S-C/C-2 SPROAT CHERYL A TE 1704362410700 C-2 S-C/C-2 SPROAT CHERYL A TE 1704362410600 C-2 S-C/C-2 SPROAT CHERYL A TE 1704361318701 C-2 S-C/C-2 MILL RACE LLC 1704362410800 C-2 S-C/C-2 UNIT SUPPLY CO 1704362410900 C-2 S-C/C-2 UNIT SUPPLY CO 1704362411000 C-2 S-C/C-2 GABER MICHAEL L & JAMIE A 1704362412400 C-2 S-C/C-2 HUNT DENNIS M & MYRA J 1704362412802 C-2 S-C/C-2 G & G ASSOCIATES LLC 1704362412900 C-2 S-C/C-2 L1N RICHARD T 1704362413200 C-2 S-C/C-2 B & A INC 1704362413300 C-2 S-C/C-2 SMITH CARLA C 1704361318702 C-2 S-C/C-2 MILL RACE LLC 1704362412800 C-2 S-C/C-2 SIMRELL ROBERT D & VICKIE K 1704362410802 C-2 S-C/C-2 OLSON FAMILY PROPERTIES LLC 1704362412801 C-2 S-C/C-2 MATTSON FAMILY LLC 1704362410801 C-2 S-C/C-2 INGAR PROPERTIES 1704362411300 C-2 S-C/C-2 STEBBEDS TONY A TE 1704362411900 C-2 S-C/C-2 CAG FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 1704362412000 C-2 S-C/C-2 CAG FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 1704362412100 C-2 S-C/C-2 CAG FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 1704362412600 C-2 S-C/C-2 GRACEN JAMES & BELINDA 1704362412701 C-2 S-C/C-2 COLLEGE PLY INC 1704362413000 C-2 S-C/C-2 L1N RICHARD T 1704362413100 C-2 S-C/C-2 B & A INC ! Tax Lot ! Current Zone I Proposed Zone I Owner I 1704362413301 C-2 S-C/C-2 SUPER SITES LLC 1704361318600 C-2 S-C/C-2 COCHRANE GERRY D 1704361318500 C-2 S-C/C-2 ALEXANDER CATHERINE V 1704361318703 C-2 S-C/C-2 ZELEN DONALD J & JEANNE L 1704363104600 C-2 S-C/C-2 PETERSEN MARCIA G TE 1704363104700 C-2 S-C/C-2 PETERSEN RONALD D 1704363103600 C-2 S-C/C-2 MADRONE ENTERPRISES LLC 1704363103200 C-2 S-C/C-2 ST VINCENT DEPAUL SOCIETY 1704363103500 C-2 S-C/C-2 ST VINCENT DEPAUL SOCIETY 1704363102200 C-2 S-C/C-2 MALK LLC 1704363102100 C-2 S-C/C-2 YAMANAKA VERN & MARY C 1704363101500 C-2 S-C/C-2 SEMASKO JOHN E TE 1704363101700 C-2 S-C/C-2 SEMASKO JOHN E TE 1704363101800 C-2 S-C/C-2 SEMASKO JOHN E TE 1704363101900 C-2 S-C/C-2 HOL VERSTOTT TREV A 1704363100100 C-2 S-C/C-2 MOORE JACK L 1704364205800 C-2 S-C/C-2 JONGEWARD SNElL TE 1704364206100 C-2 S-C/C-2 KLOHS EUGENE L & ELSITA G 1704364205600 C-2 S-C/C-2 LOSCO MARK A 1704364205200 C-2 S-C/C-2 DIVINE & HAMMER LLC 1704363103700 C-2 S-C/C-2 MADRONE ENTERPRISES LLC 1704363102000 C-2 S-C/C-2 HAMMER JOHN P 3-4 1704363103802 C-2 S-C/C-2 MADRONE ENTERPRISES LLC 1704363102300 C-2 S-C/C-2 HASTINGS VICTOR D 1704364205000 C-2 S-C/C-2 GRAY GREGORY W 1704363101400 C-2 S-C/C-2 SEMASKO JOHN E TE 1704364205100 C-2 S-C/C-2 RAYMOND G WOLFE REV TR 1704364206000 C-2 S-C/C-2 KLOHS EUGENE L 1704363100600 C-2 S-C/C-2 MOORE JACK L 1704364206300 C-2 S-C/C-2 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FEDERAL 1704363100700 C-2 S-C/C-2 KLOCEK STELLA A TE 1704363100800 C-2 S-C/C-2 R & R PERKINS LLC 1704364206400 C-2 S-C/C-2 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FEDERAL 1704362402800 R-1 S-C/R-1 JACOBSON RICHARD A 1704362403300 R-1 S-C/R-1 NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC 1704362403600 R-1 S-C/R-1 NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC 1704362403700 R-1 S-C/R-1 NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC 1704362404000 R-1 S-C/R-1 JOHNS BETTY K 1704362404600 R-1 S-C/R-1 MOFFETT JAMIE W & JUDY K 1704362404700 R-1 S-C/R-1 BOLING ROGER 1704362405000 R-1 S-C/R-1 MACBEAR STEVE E 1704362405100 R-1 S-C/R-1 FELLOWS VIRGINIA J 1704362405500 R-1 S-C/R-1 STANFORD SUSANNE N & THAD C 1704362405600 R-1 S-C/R-1 MORRIGAN KENDRA 1704362405900 R-1 S-C/R-1 DEVORE SARAH 1704362406000 R-1 S-C/R-1 CLARK ARDETH J 1704362402700 R-1 S-C/R-1 ZUBER JOHN R & LEE M 1704362406100 R-1 S-C/R-1 LUCAS SHIRLEY 1704362402500 R-1 S-C/R-1 STONEBURNER WILLIAM E & C F 1704362402600 R-1 S-C/R-1 KERR TODD D 1704362403000 R-1 S-C/R-1 GOLAN AMIR 1704362403100 R-1 S-C/R-1 WRIGHT REBECKAH F 1704362403400 R-1 S-C/R-1 FINCH ORSON J & BEULAH B 1704362403500 R-1 S-C/R-1 GAZLEY LAURENCE D & KAREN A 1704362403800 R-1 S-C/R-1 SWIFT DALE E & CHRISTINE M 1704362403900 R-1 S-C/R-1 HUNTINGTON CELESTE L 1704362404300 R-1 S-C/R-1 DAVIS KATYA I Tax Lot I Current Zone I Proposed Zone I Owner I 1704362404500 R-1 S-C/R-1 GOODWIN HEATHER N J 1704362404800 R-1 S-C/R-1 VELAZQUEZ ROBERTO 1704362404900 R-1 S-C/R-1 BIBLE IRENE H 1704362405200 R-1 S-C/R-1 BARTHELEMY E PAUL 1704362405300 R-1 S-C/R-1 HANSEN HAROLD R 1704362405700 R-1 S-C/R-1 THOMPSON ANGELA M 1704362405800 R-1 S-C/R-1 HUME ARVILLA E 1704362406200 R-1 S-C/R-1 CONLIN ANDRE LEE 1704362404400 R-1 S-C/R-1 DUGAN MARY ANN 1704362406300 R-1 S-C/R-1 LOUIE JACK & ILLlNE 1704362410200 R-1 S-C/R-1 SPROAT CHERYL A TE 1704362410201 R-1 S-C/R-1 FRIEND GRACE ELEANOR TE 1704362409900 R-1 S-C/R-1 APPIAH BEN 1704362409800 R-1 S-C/R-1 SUNDQUIST JOHN D & ROSE 1704362409500 R-1 S-C/R-1 ODEN GRACE F 1704362409400 R-1 S-C/R-1 PAOLO CAROL W 1704362409300 R-1 S-C/R-1 MOORE THADDEUS 1704362408900 R-1 S-C/R-1 NEWMAN DAVID L 1704362408500 R-1 S-C/R-1 SINGER STANLEY A 1704362408400 R-1 S-C/R-1 MERWIN DAVID 0 & SARAH S 1704362408100 R-1 S-C/R-1 GOFF ANNE 1704362408000 R-1 S-C/R-1 SUNDQUIST NEAL & ANGELA 1704362407600 R-1 S-C/R-1 WILLIAMS SEAN B 1704362407500 R-1 S-C/R-1 RICH JAMES W 1704362407100 R-1 S-C/R-1 OLDAKER WAYNE H & MARY JANE 1704362407000 R-1 S-C/R-1 ADAMS ROBERT C 1704362406900 R-1 S-C/R-1 PARK RODNEY & MANUELA 1704362406400 R-1 S-C/R-1 GRAY LILLIAN A 1704362406500 R-1 S-C/R-1 CHARTERS RICHARD D & CHLOE F 1704362410100 R-1 S-C/R-1 HOWE ROBERT N 1704362410000 R-1 S-C/R-1 SOGN DOUGLAS 1704362409700 R-1 S-C/R-1 ROSSI MARCELLO 1704362409600 R-1 S-C/R-1 SMITH SHIRLEY J TE 1704362409200 R-1 S-C/R-1 SMITH SHIRLEY J 1704362409100 R-1 S-C/R-1 BROCKETT DAVID W 1704362408800 R-1 S-C/R-1 MILETO JULIE MARIE 1704362408300 R-1 S-C/R-1 MACE LESLIE E & MARY 1704362408200 R-1 S-C/R-1 LAWS ERIC JASON 1704362407900 R-1 S-C/R-1 WOLLASTON GREGORY J & CORL YN K 1704362407800 R-1 S-C/R-1 WOLLASTON GREGORY J & CORL YN K 1704362407700 R-1 S-C/R-1 BRADFORD GLORIA 1704362407300 R-1 S-C/R-1 HARRIS MARK C 1704362407200 R-1 S-C/R-1 WHITBREAD JONATHAN DAVID 1704362406800 R-1 S-C/R-1 MCCOY JAMES RHEA 1704362406600 R-1 S-C/R-1 DAHLSTROM L YN 1704362406700 R-1 S-C/R-1 BREEDEN FLORENCE E 1704362411100 R-1 S-C/R-1 CHAN PHILLIP S K TE 1704362411500 R-1 S-C/R-1 KAOKEPT VIVA T 1704362411600 R-1 S-C/R-1 KAOKEPT VIVA T 1704362411700 R-1 S-C/R-1 LOHMAN SCOTT 1704362412700 R-1 S-C/R-1 ESTRADA GEORGE & L M 1704362411200 R-1 S-C/R-1 CHAN KAREN M TE 1704363103800 R-1 S-C/R-1 ROEHL NICHOLAS & SUZANNE 1704363104300 R-1 S-C/R-1 ZACA TEN CO JOSE L 1704363104200 R-1 S-C/R-1 LEMON HERBERT C & JANE C I Tax Lot I Current Zone I Proposed Zone I Owner I 1704363104100 R-1 S-C/R-1 ROGERS DAVID C 1704363104000 R-1 S-C/R-1 KAVANEY PATRICK 1704363105700 R-1 S-C/R-1 DEFOE ALAN PAUL 1704363105900 R-1 S-C/R-1 HARRIS JACK & LAURA MAY 1704363106000 R-1 S-C/R-1 CHAMNESS SHARON L 1704363104801 R-1 S-C/R-1 BROWN RUTH IDA 1704363104800 R-1 S-C/R-1 CATHOLIC COMMUNITY 1704363107100 R-1 S-C/R-1 WEAVER BRIAN D 1704363107200 R-1 S-C/R-1 KAISER TIMOTHY A 1704363106200 R-1 S-C/R-1 KAPSALlS D SHIRLEY 1704363107000 R-1 S-C/R-1 TIRRILL DONALD H 1704363104900 R-1 S-C/R-1 SKY CATHRYN S 1704363106300 R-1 S-C/R-1 QUIGLEY SHASTA D 1704363105600 R-1 S-C/R-1 FORE ROBERT D & JUDY D 1704363105000 R-1 S-C/R-1 KIMBERLEY STEPHEN D 1704363105500 R-1 S-C/R-1 HARRINGTON RICHARD P & LINDA R 1704363105400 R-1 S-C/R-1 MORNINGSTAR REX & CHERISE 1704363106400 R-1 S-C/R-1 PETERSEN MYRA L 1704363106900 R-1 S-C/R-1 FOLSTON WILLIAM 1704363106800 R-1 S-C/R-1 FOLSTON WILLIAM 1704363106700 R-1 S-C/R-1 ALLENBAUGH TIMOTHY E 1704363108500 R-1 S-C/R-1 PETERSEN GREGORY A & MYRA L D 1704363108400 R-1 S-C/R-1 BRAINARD RONALD C & R C 1704363108300 R-1 S-C/R-1 MCNETT JANET E 1704363108200 R-1 S-C/R-1 HATZIKALFAS JOHN & BROWN ALICE A 1704363108100 R-1 S-C/R-1 CAMPBELL SCOTT D & MARY E 1704363108000 R-1 S-C/R-1 CAMPBELL SCOTT D & MARY E 1704363105100 R-1 S-C/R-1 RICHMAN LINDA S 1704363105200 R-1 S-C/R-1 YUN HAE SHIK & OCK HEE 1704363106500 R-1 S-C/R-1 SWANSON-CALL CYNTHIA J 1704363106600 R-1 S-C/R-1 HASKELL SHARIE L 1704363107900 R-1 S-C/R-1 CAMPBELL SCOTT D & MARY E 1704361304100 R-2 S-C/R-2 SEAVER ORION & DAPHNE 1704361304000 R-2 S-C/R-2 KERSEY DAVID M 1704361303900 R-2 S-C/R-2 KERSEY DAVID M 1704361303800 R-2 S-C/R-2 SOGN PAUL & RACHELLE 1704361303700 R-2 S-C/R-2 KIERAN ROBERT G & FRANCES I CHRISTIE 1704361303100 R-2 S-C/R-2 GORDON CHRISTINE CHALMERS 1704361303000 R-2 S-C/R-2 PRENDERGAST TIMOTHY J 1704361302900 R-2 S-C/R-2 HANSON CAROL D 1704361302500 R-2 S-C/R-2 STAUB CAROL YN T 1704361302400 R-2 S-C/R-2 HILL RAYMOND & SUSAN STOKES 1704361301800 R-2 S-C/R-2 GRANTHAM HAROLD L & PEGGY R 1704361301700 R-2 S-C/R-2 ZWICK FRED N 1704361301600 R-2 S-C/R-2 STEPANOVICH DOREEN RUTH 1704361301500 R-2 S-C/R-2 HIRONS SHARON L 1704361300900 R-2 S-C/R-2 THOMAS CATHERINE W 1704361300200 R-2 S-C/R-2 ALBRECHT KURT & ALISON V 1704361300100 R-2 S-C/R-2 SIMONE DAVID W 1704361305200 R-2 S-C/R-2 PRAGER SHARON LYNN 1704361303101 R-2 S-C/R-2 FALSGRAF MITSUKO 1704361302800 R-2 S-C/R-2 FISHMAN ADAM 1704361301900 R-2 S-C/R-2 PARMAN ALICE TE 1704361301400 R-2 S-C/R-2 LINDSEY ROBIN A 1704361301000 R-2 S-C/R-2 CANTRELL SHANNON 1704361300300 R-2 S-C/R-2 HOROWITZ HAROLD & AUDREY 1704361305400 R-2 S-C/R-2 FARMER SANFORD ! Tax Lot I Current Zone I Proposed Zone I Owner I 1704361303300 R-2 S-C/R-2 FRALICK CHRISTOPHER J 1704361302700 R-2 S-C/R-2 STAMBAUGH BONNIE S 1704361302302 R-2 S-C/R-2 SYRIOS WILLIAM L & TERESA S 1704361302300 R-2 S-C/R-2 SYRIOS WILLIAM L & TERESA S 1704361302000 R-2 S-C/R-2 LEE THEODORE & DEBORAH PTNRS 1704361300800 R-2 S-C/R-2 JORDAN JAMES A 1704361300400 R-2 S-C/R-2 ROSENBERG STACY R 1704361301100 R-2 S-C/R-2 HALBERT CATHLEEN L 1704361301300 R-2 S-C/R-2 KIRKPATRICK SCOTT D 1704361305504 R-2 S-C/R-2 BOLMAN ROBERT 1704361303500 R-2 S-C/R-2 MOSTKOFF DALE A 1704361303400 R-2 S-C/R-2 BONTE MARY BETH 1704361302200 R-2 S-C/R-2 THOMPSON ALICE CARY TE 1704361302100 R-2 S-C/R-2 TORRANCE JULIA E 1704361301200 R-2 S-C/R-2 PURVIS MATTHEW R 111 1704361300700 R-2 S-C/R-2 DRESSEKIE SADIE A 1704361300500 R-2 S-C/R-2 RINGER GREGORY D 1704361305505 R-2 S-C/R-2 GEORGE ALICE JEANNE 1704361303600 R-2 S-C/R-2 BROOKS CHERYL ANN 1704361300600 R-2 S-C/R-2 VIERRA NANCY 1704361307300 R-2 S-C/R-2 GERMANI JANE A 1704361307200 R-2 S-C/R-2 NEWINGHAM LARRY A 1704361308600 R-2 S-C/R-2 BEAUCHAMP MARK S & MARY A 1704361308800 R-2 S-C/R-2 STOUT ODILE C 1704361310200 R-2 S-C/R-2 CARREL CONSTANCE L 1704361310300 R-2 S-C/R-2 ROBERTS ELIZABETH TANNER 1704361308700 R-2 S-C/R-2 GERMANI JANE A 1704361310400 R-2 S-C/R-2 RASMUSSEN DAVID A 1704361310500 R-2 S-C/R-2 KARLE KRISTEN M 1704361310600 R-2 S-C/R-2 SELPH STEPHEN L & LAURA 1704361310700 R-2 S-C/R-2 THOMAS JACK R & JUDY F 1704361311700 R-2 S-C/R-2 STEVENS PATRICK L 1704361311800 R-2 S-C/R-2 MAY BARBARA DALE 1704361311900 R-2 S-C/R-2 SZMIT MIECZYSLAW L 1704361312200 R-2 S-C/R-2 PRESCOTT ALISON 1704361312300 R-2 S-C/R-2 DAVIS LOIS LIANNA 1704361312400 R-2 S-C/R-2 VIERRA LISA MAE 1704361308900 R-2 S-C/R-2 MARCUS HELENA E 1704361312500 R-2 S-C/R-2 OVERMAN RICHARD C JR 1704361307100 R-2 S-C/R-2 EWING TOM N & LISETTE S 1704361307400 R-2 S-C/R-2 VAZQUEZ DAVID 1704361308500 R-2 S-C/R-2 FINE KAREN H 1704361309000 R-2 S-C/R-2 PLUMMER JONANTHAN S 1704361310800 R-2 S-C/R-2 DAWNING JONI/HICKS DAVID CHARLES 1704361311600 R-2 S-C/R-2 SINNAMON SHANDRA S 1704361312600 R-2 S-C/R-2 LEFTON ENID D 1704361307000 R-2 S-C/R-2 BRUSCATOJACQUELlNE 1704361307500 R-2 S-C/R-2 HUMPHREY JOSHUA B & JENNY ANN 1704361308400 R-2 S-C/R-2 WEST COAST INVESTMENT GROUP LLC 1704361309100 R-2 S-C/R-2 RUSSIAL JOHN T 1704361310900 R-2 S-C/R-2 CUNNINGHAM M DIANNE 1704361309200 R-2 S-C/R-2 KEIM JOSHUA A 1704361312700 R-2 S-C/R-2 KRESKO MICHAEL J 1704361308401 R-2 S-C/R-2 ROSSITER NEIL 1704361310000 R-2 S-C/R-2 ZORN MARK A & KATHLEEN J 1704361306900 R-2 S-C/R-2 ENGELMANN THERESE 1704361307600 R-2 S-C/R-2 KARLIK JOHN N Tax Lot Current Zone ProDosed Zone Owner 1704361311500 R-2 S-C/R-2 KIGER HUGH C 1704361312000 R-2 S-C/R-2 NEMIR MARIE L 1704361311000 R-2 S-C/R-2 ZORN MARK A & KATHLEEN J 1704361308300 R-2 S-C/R-2 TREVARROW WILLIAM W & EVA 1704361309300 R-2 S-C/R-2 PETHICK STEPHEN J 1704361312900 R-2 S-C/R-2 DEGENEAUL T LEWIS ALLEN 1704361309600 R-2 S-C/R-2 CONTE PAUL T 1704361312800 R-2 S-C/R-2 PATTEN WILLIAM 0 & ELVA M 1704361309700 R-2 S-C/R-2 FOSS ESTHER 1704361306800 R-2 S-C/R-2 ZELAZEK CHRISTINA 1704361309800 R-2 S-C/R-2 WRIGHT CRAIG A 1704361309900 R-2 S-C/R-2 CURRY CAROL 0 1704361307700 R-2 S-C/R-2 FARRELL ERIN M 1704361311100 R-2 S-C/R-2 BLACK WADE C & CYNTHIA A 1-2 1704361311200 R-2 S-C/R-2 SACKEY JOHN B & RHONDA K 1704361311300 R-2 S-C/R-2 INMAN DEAN P 1704361311400 R-2 S-C/R-2 JOHNSTONE ART & TERRI TE 1704361313000 R-2 S-C/R-2 ANDERSONJERRYVERN 1704361306700 R-2 S-C/R-2 SPENCE CRAIG S 1704361307800 R-2 S-C/R-2 DOMINY JOHN W 1704361312100 R-2 S-C/R-2 BUSH JUDITH M 1704361308200 R-2 S-C/R-2 LYNCH JANET M 1704361309500 R-2 S-C/R-2 ROFSKY RICHARD I 1704361309400 R-2 S-C/R-2 EWERS SUSAN 1704361313100 R-2 S-C/R-2 STRAND VICTORIA R 1704361306600 R-2 S-C/R-2 SMOOT LISBETH ANNE 1704361307901 R-2 S-C/R-2 SCARBOROUGH JAMES W 1704361307900 R-2 S-C/R-2 KIRSCH AUDREY C 1704361306500 R-2 S-C/R-2 MCLAUGHLIN ALlSA 1704361308000 R-2 S-C/R-2 ARDEN-GENDEL WAKEROBIN 1704361308100 R-2 S-C/R-2 WEINSTEIN LESLIE A 1704361316401 R-2 S-C/R-2 COLLINS DANIEL S 1704361316300 R-2 S-C/R-2 SEIFERLlNG ERIKA 1704361315600 R-2 S-C/R-2 CABELL J NORTON & HOLL Y H 1704361315400 R-2 S-C/R-2 HANSON LELAND E & KATHI E 1704361315300 S-H S-C/R-2 FELDMAN JACK & ANNE-MARIE L1ZET- 1704361313600 R-2 S-C/R-2 COLVIN F WARREN 1704361313500 R-2 S-C/R-2 SUVA DONALD CARL & LESLIE M 1704361318100 R-2 S-C/R-2 EICHBAUM FAMILY LIVING TRUST 1704361313300 R-2 S-C/R-2 FENECH JOSEPH 1704361313200 R-2 S-C/R-2 BAILEY ROGER F 1704361318000 R-2 S-C/R-2 WETHERBEE MARY R 1704361316700 R-2 S-C/R-2 KARMYKEL MARBEL 1704361316402 R-2 S-C/R-2 BUEL-MCINTIRE STEVEN & CRYSTAL 1704361313800 R-2 S-C/R-2 FENECH JOSEPH 1704361318200 R-2 S-C/R-2 ALVARADO JESSICA S 1704361317900 R-2 S-C/R-2 DAWSON SCOTT A & MELANIE J 1704361316800 R-2 S-C/R-2 WILLIAMS CATHERINE A 1704361316200 R-2 S-C/R-2 STEIN ALAN L 1704361315200 R-2 S-C/R-2 ROEHL NICHOLAS 1704361313700 R-2 S-C/R-2 FODOR ALEX & MIRAH 1704361313701 R-2 S-C/R-2 THORNTON OLIVER CROMWELL 1704361313900 R-2 S-C/R-2 CRECINE JOHN PATRICK 1704361317800 R-2 S-C/R-2 WISSIG RAYMOND W & KAREN K 1704361318300 R-2 S-C/R-2 WILLIAMS RICHARD 0 1704361316900 R-2 S-C/R-2 MAHER MICHELLE 1704361316001 R-2 S-C/R-2 WALKER JOHN LAWRENCE I Tax Lot I Current Zone I Proposed Zone I Owner I 1704361315900 R-2 S-C/R-2 AGUILAR-RICE SUSANA D 1704361315800 R-2 S-C/R-2 NAEGLE VANCE 1704361315700 R-2 S-C/R-2 HEIN EUGENE L & PATRICIA L 1704361315100 R-2 S-C/R-2 RONZIO ALAN J & CAMILLE J 1704361315000 R-2 S-C/R-2 HELM DAVID M & CHRISTINE E 1704361318400 R-2 S-C/R-2 HASS lONE TE 1704361314900 R-2 S-C/R-2 BANNON ALBERT J 1704361317700 R-2 S-C/R-2 HINGEL KAREN J 1704361317400 R-2 S-C/R-2 BROWN MARK ALAN 1704361317100 R-2 S-C/R-2 FULLBRIGHT THOMAS E 1704361314600 R-2 S-C/R-2 JAST AD GARY C 1704361314400 R-2 S-C/R-2 POSTLES ANNABELLE 1704361314300 R-2 S-C/R-2 WADDUPS CHARLES F 1704361314100 R-2 S-C/R-2 ZINNKER MARK W & STACEY M 1704361317600 R-2 S-C/R-2 LANGFORD GREGORY B 1704361317500 R-2 S-C/R-2 BROWN CAROL A 1704361316000 R-2 S-C/R-2 BEVER EVA WRIGHT 1704361317200 R-2 S-C/R-2 MCNEELEY CAMERON 1704361314800 R-2 S-C/R-2 CARON-LONG TERRY 1704361314200 R-2 S-C/R-2 BIKE LORETTA Y T & ROBERT L 1704361314000 R-2 S-C/R-2 DONOHUE NORMAND A JR & PATRICIA A 1704361314500 R-2 S-C/R-2 PERRYMAN PAMELA J 1704361317300 R-2 S-C/R-2 PAGE JUDITH ANN 1704361314700 R-2 S-C/R-2 LAMONS KENNETH 0 1704364204600 R-2 S-C/R-2 BROWN MARK ALAN 1704364203800 R-2 S-C/R-2 SRIJUNYANONT EKASIT 1704364203700 R-2 S-C/R-2 HANNON TIFFANY LYNN 1704364203500 R-2 S-C/R-2 COLE HOWARD P & PATRICIA J 1704364203400 R-2 S-C/R-2 BROWN MARK A 1704364203300 R-2 S-C/R-2 SHAPITKA JOSEPH U TE 1704364201700 R-2 S-C/R-2 KRAMARAE CHERIS 1704364201600 R-2 S-C/R-2 ST ALBOW ROBERT A 1704364201500 R-2 S-C/R-2 OSTEN GLORIA G TE 1704364201400 R-2 S-C/R-2 EYMAN GAIL D 1704364200400 R-2 S-C/R-2 HAYDEN CEDRIC L & MARILYN A 1704364200300 R-2 S-C/R-2 HAYDEN CEDRIC L & MARILYN A 1704364200100 R-2 S-C/R-2 CAMPBELL LENA 1704364203900 R-2 S-C/R-2 PAULSEN GERRY 1704364201800 R-2 S-C/R-2 ZIBELMAN S J & SHERMAN S R 1704364201900 R-2 S-C/R-2 BROWN DANIEL T 1704364204700 R-2 S-C/R-2 NICHOLS DAVID ALAN & KRISTINE LYNN 1704364203600 R-2 S-C/R-2 CARY-HOBBS JESSE 1704364204000 R-2 S-C/R-2 HILTY JEFFREY R & GRETA E 1704364201300 R-2 S-C/R-2 EYMAN GARY R & GAIL 1704364202100 R-2 S-C/R-2 FRAUMAN-PRICKEL MAXINE 1704364202000 R-2 S-C/R-2 MOBLEY RYAN 1704364200502 R-2 S-C/R-2 NIEMEYER FRED 1704364200501 R-2 S-C/R-2 WALTERS PETE & DORRINDA 1704364204801 R-2 S-C/R-2 CARLlER DAVID GASTON 1704364204500 R-2 S-C/R-2 CARLlER DAVID G 1704364204100 R-2 S-C/R-2 COX NATHAN 1704364203100 R-2 S-C/R-2 SABALA ELLE A 1704364203200 R-2 S-C/R-2 BIRZER RANDY E 1704364202701 R-2 S-C/R-2 ROBERTS TERRY A & LINDA L 1704364202200 R-2 S-C/R-2 IVY VERNA LEA 1704364202300 R-2 S-C/R-2 HARRISON PAMELA A 1704364200600 R-2 S-C/R-2 FEHSENFIELD ROBIN NYBERG Tax Lot Current Zone Proposed Zone Owner 1704364201200 R-2 S-C/R-2 EYMAN GAIL D 1704364200900 R-2 S-C/R-2 CROOK MARJORIE ANN 1704364204800 R-2 S-C/R-2 ZEGAR ELIZABETH 1704364203000 R-2 S-C/R-2 HAGER ROBERT T 1704364204400 R-2 S-C/R-2 HERBST NINA K 1704364204300 R-2 S-C/R-2 FUEHRING DAN ALAN 1704364204200 R-2 S-C/R-2 FROHBACH LINDA L 1704364201100 R-2 S-C/R-2 SCHMAEDICK RONALD A & MARY 1704364200700 R-2 S-C/R-2 DIEZ MIGUEL ALONSO 1704364200701 R-2 S-C/R-2 ALMAR LLC 1704364202702 R-2 S-C/R-2 ROBERTS AMY R 1704364202600 R-2 S-C/R-2 WILLETT BETTYE JANE 1704364202900 R-2 S-C/R-2 HALL COLLIN B 1704364202800 R-2 S-C/R-2 DREAMCRAFTERS LLC 1704364202400 R-2 S-C/R-2 POTTER MARIL YN A TE 1704364200800 R-2 S-C/R-2 CABLE STEVEN P 1704364201000 R-2 S-C/R-2 LODGE CAROL YN S 1704364206600 R-2 S-C/R-2 RICE SANFORD D & MARIL YN M 1704364207100 R-2 S-C/R-2 SCHMAEDICK MARY JO 1704364207200 R-2 S-C/R-2 STEVENS TUCK & W AL TER 1704364207900 R-2 S-C/R-2 ROWLES MARGARET MARY 1704364208000 R-2 S-C/R-2 MORAN MARK S & ELIZABETH 1704364208100 R-2 S-C/R-2 JOHNSTON RONALD D & MARIA T 1704364206700 R-2 S-C/R-2 SMYTHE ROBERTA L 1704364207300 R-2 S-C/R-2 REEVES BEVERL Y JUNE 1704364208202 R-2 S-C/R-2 GRAHAM ROBERT D 1704364208201 R-2 S-C/R-2 SARIA BARBARA B 1704364206800 R-2 S-C/R-2 VOLK BRANDI N 1704364207400 R-2 S-C/R-2 BRIGGS JANET 1704364208203 R-2 S-C/R-2 GRAHAM ROBERT D 1704364208204 R-2 S-C/R-2 NEWHALL ELIZABETH P 1704364206900 R-2 S-C/R-2 BETTERTON LARRY R & TAMMY L 1704364207600 R-2 S-C/R-2 PROCRUSTEAN SOLUTIONS 1704364208400 R-2 S-C/R-2 TURNER PROPERTIES PTRSHP 1704364208500 R-2 S-C/R-2 HUFF DANILE & JULIE 1704364207700 R-2 S-C/R-2 BARLOW M B 1704364207000 R-2 S-C/R-2 SMITH CRAIG A 1704364207800 R-2 S-C/R-2 KEITH FAMILY TRUST 12-14-90 1704364208600 R-2 S-C/R-2 FUNKHOUSER LAURIE ANN Map 9.3055 S-C Chambers Special Area Zone and Subareas c Ii U ~'''-Trl-'-'--~r--'r'=~l Qj I r J' i I : 'ij.-.., I...,. " i j 1-'1 I -"'---i~'-" I I "-. I ~~hjAt~-...-1...L..j[I=-fl - ..-- .J.-J~...j 6th Ave lliJj cTTrr--/tilrTrT-il ,I, /'1 Ic::' 111'J I L.--L...J_. 1.. ! " i 1-..-.....-,..'PT"l ~~":::=,,:O:::,,.._.~'..-r":; i i i ! !ml ' i j : I I El I r ! , '- i' i--1LLJ<C I I "-"-.__..-.I.~ 1-, LJ UJg=] I I' 1.'__-1 I . If---....i Li13tnAYk ~rrrl[=-1~ i-TT; ~=~'l~ rTTl~!TI~:r~] ti j13th.AVe........_._...__...__...__....__,___..__..._...._ '--'-"lr~"-"-, r..... "_ 'Vi I ! I_m~ <III t'"_m!f__m-j c: ,..1 r I , !' I VI I I 1 I Ii i I til, r I ~:~~>tttl1D&[t1Jljf~ji~~~~=:======I~=,==~t~t-i1~i~ C Chambers Special Area Zone Boundary 1,1I.~llliliill,I,1 Low Density Residential ] _ Medium Density Residential Areas affected by _ C 'ty C . I proposed zone change ommum ommercla ... N ATTACHMENT B Planning & Development Planning City of Eugene th 99 West 10 Avenue M Eugene, Oregon 97401 EMORANDUM (541) 682-5377 (541) 682-5572 FAX www.eugene-or.gov Date: October 25, 2005 To: Eugene City Council From: Allen Lowe, Planning and Development Department Subject: Response to Council Questions – Chambers Reconsidered 1. Councilor Bettman asked where the definition of open space could be found. Staff Response: The Eugene Code defines open space as follows: “Unless otherwise specified in this land use code, the portion of a development site not devoted to buildings, parking, or driveways.” Section 9.5500(9)(a) Open Space Requirements for Multi-Family Developments states that “common open space” may include any of the following: 1. Outdoor areas incorporating: a. Lawn or hard surfaced areas in which user amenities such as trees, shrubs, pathways, tables, benches or drinking fountains have been placed. b. Ornamental or food gardens. c. Developed and equipped adult recreation areas. d. Develop and equipped children’s play areas. e. Sports courts (tennis, handball, volleyball, etc.). f. Swimming pools, spas and adjacent patios and decks. g. Roof terraces. h. Picnic areas. i. Covered, but unenclosed, patios. j. Internal courtyards. 2. Councilor Bettman asked for the definition of “vehicle use areas” and queried whether open space areas could be used for vehicle parking? Staff Response: The Eugene Code defines a “vehicle use area” as follows: “Parking spaces, driveways, interior roadways, loading areas, and fleet vehicle storage areas.” Open space areas cannot be used for required vehicle parking in the proposed Chambers Special Area Zone or the existing code. 3. Councilor Bettman requested information about “maximum paved area” requirements in the Eugene Code. Staff Response: Eugene Code section 9.6745 Setback Intrusions Permitted states that parking spaces and parking areas are not permitted in required front and interior yard setbacks except as provided in subsection (7)(a), which states: 1 “(a) In areas with a broad zone category of residential, as depicted in Table 9.1030 Zones, parking in required front and interior yard setbacks is permitted with the following restrictions: 1. Parking spaces in required front yard setbacks are permitted in conjunction with a one family dwelling, secondary dwelling, or duplex, provided the parking spaces are located on driveways. 2. For lots and parcels with at least 50 feet of frontage, driveways shall cover a maximum of one-half of the area in the required front yard setback. All portions of required front yard setbacks not otherwise covered by legal driveways shall be landscaped and maintained. In addition, the maximum width of a driveway permitted in conjunction with a one family dwelling or secondary dwelling shall be 27 feet. This includes a combined width if more than one driveway is constructed on the lot using the required front yard setback. “ This allowance would be modified in the S-C/R-2 subarea by provisions that limit maximum driveway widths to 13 feet rather than 27 feet. There are no other provisions in the R-2 zoning district or multi-family development standards that address the concept of a “maximum paved area”. 4. Councilor Kelly asked how and when the transportation improvements would get funded and constructed. Staff Response: The recommended transportation improvements would be funded and constructed in a variety of ways. Two of the projects are on State facilities enabling the City to request that ODOT fund and construct them. Two are recommended for inclusion in the Eugene Capital Improvement Program. Three others are recommended for further evaluation and analysis before implementing. Finally, two of the identified projects should be fully evaluated in the context of an area-wide mixed use development plan. 5. Councilor Kelly asked to see the design guidelines document that was prepared for the Chambers Project. Staff Response: The design guidelines document, “A Citizen’s Guide to Potential Design Guidelines for a Mature Neighborhood” was completed in late June, 2005, too late in the process to be included in the Planning Commission public hearing process. The guidelines were developed by the consultants to promote discussion of design review as one model that might satisfy the Council and Planning Commission’s quest for an ‘alternative path”. The document is attached for your review. 2 A Citizens' Guide to Potential Design Guidelines for a Mature Neighborhood Eugene, Oregon June 2005 CHAMBERS RECONSIDERED Allen Lowe, Project Manager City of Eugene I Oregon Department of Transportation TGM Agreement No. 21854 TGM File Code 2K-03 Greg Brokaw, AlA John Rowell, AlA Howard Davis Chad Kirkpatrick Martha Bohm Rowell Brokaw Architects, PC One East Broadway, Suite 300 Eugene, OR 97401 Ronald Kellett, Consultant Centre for Landscape Research, 2357 Main Mall, University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC V6T 1 Z4 This Citizens' Guide describes the character and patterns of development found in the East Traditional Neighborhood and proposes guidelines for the maintenance of its character. This guide has been produced to help citizens, neighbors, and city officials better understand the ETN and the particular characteristics that make it appealing to residents today. It attempts to articulate how those qualities can be preserved as the neighborhood continues to grow through infill and redevelopment. The material for this guide has been collected during public meetings, focus groups, from materials produced by neighbors, and materials produced by the Chambers Reconsidered TGM City of Eugene staff and project consultants. Version dated: June 30, 2005 This project is funded by a grant from the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program, a joint program of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. The TGM program relies on funding from the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and the Oregon Lottery. This report does not necessarily reflect the views of policies of the State of Oregon. CONTENTS 1. Introduction to Design Guidelines The case for the older traditional neighborhoods in Eugene 1 What makes a traditional neighborhood work? 2 No house is an island 4 Good neighbors cooperate 6 What are design guidelines? 7 Document organization 9 2. Neighborhood Character and Guidelines Neighborhood context 11 Street and alley organization and character 13 Block size and character 14 Alley Character 15 Lot size and shapes 16 Streetscape 18 Alleyscape 20 Density 22 3. Dwelling Form Guidelines Houses with character 24 Relationship of house to lot, street, and yard 26 Mass and scale 28 Privacy 30 Parking and garages 32 Multiple detached units 34 4. Dwelling Character Guidelines Architectural character 35 Windows 36 Exterior materials 37 Entry and porches 38 Fendng 39 Roof character 40 Landscaping 41 Appendix Resources and additional information 43 I THE CASE FOR OLDER TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN EUGENE Like most cities its age and size, Eugene has substantial remnants of older residential neighborhoods that have architectural character and patterns of development unique to pre-World War II housing development. The East Traditional Neighborhood (ETN) in the Chambers area is an example of one such neighborhood that emerged and matured before cuI-de sacs, driveways, garages, and car-dominated suburbs became the norm. Most of the houses were built within recognizable stylistic traditions, from a limited set of period pattern books, and by builders who had a good grasp of proportion and detail. In some of these neighborhoods the homes are large and stately; while in the ETN they are modest and even cottage-like. There is consistency, but also subtle variety that is often lacking in newer housing developments. What is most distinctive about the ETN and other older neighborhoods is not the historic character of any particular house, but the overall pattern of streets and alleys, the architectural coherence of housing stock, and the way that houses and streets work together to create a unique sense of community. Having emerged early in the city's formation, the ETN and other older neighborhoods tend to be close to the downtown core. Some are zoned for higher densities and are targets for redevelopment or infill development that could introduce new development patterns, non-residential uses, and lower quality rental housing. Today's "building culture"-the conventional building practices, codes, materials, and desired forms of housing-has changed dramatically since the time when these neighborhoods were built. The perceived need 111 I Typical street scene in the East Traditional Neighborhood (ETN) with a full canopy of mature trees. House in the University area, a well recognized older traditional neighborhood that has also struggled with changes. . 1 : for wide driveways, large garages in front, as well as the desire for much larger living space inside, are examples of new market forces that are not easily satisfied. What is conventionally built now does not typically fit with the traditional neighborhood. Unaddressed, these forces will substantially alter the ETN and other older traditional neighborhoods to their detriment. Anyone looking at housing in Eugene recognizes the value of these older neighborhoods. Although not everyone's ideal, they offer a desirable housing option for many people, and for some they represent the most livable neighborhoods in the city. These neighborhoods are not necessarily historic, but they are part of our city's history, and are important to its identity. All neighborhoods change over time. Older houses will be updated and new ones constructed. The new is never exactly the same as the old; nevertheless, the patterns that make these older neighborhoods unique can be sustained. As a matter of civic responsibility, the city and its citizens should recognize the most coherent of these neighborhoods as cultural and physical artifacts, and promote the understanding and preservation of them. This Citizens' Guide to the East Traditional Neighborhood is intended to give citizens and officials the tools to understand what makes one of these neighborhoods unique and to identifY specific ways that future development in this neighborhood can fit in and contribute to a strong tradition. WHAT MAKES A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD WORK? Both the physical structure, and the relationships and understandings among neighbors are key to the . health of traditional neighborhood. Typically, older neighborhoods have consistent physical characteristics, summarized as follows: · Gridded streets · De-emphasized parking · Houses oriented to the street · Front yards as important semi-public space · Alleys for services, storage, limited housing, and pedestrian traffic · Significant street trees and mature urban landscape · Walkable distances to downtown, commercial areas, and open spaces Traditional neighborhoods also rely on respectful decision-making among residents, and a willingness to let the neighborhood evolve over time. Many of the wonderful qualities of older, living neighborhoods is that nothing repeats exactly, yet there is overall continuity. General patterns and trends grow and evolve over time, and it is the enduring patterns, not so much the individual structures, that give the neighborhood its traditional character. This is less true in suburban neighborhoods developed by a single developer, employing strict CC&Rs that promote uniformity and discourage change over time. The design guidelines in this Citizens' Guide are intended to articulate and encourage the preservation of important patterns in the East Traditional Neighborhood, while allowing individual control and discretion that preserves vitality. To achieve this balance, citizens must recognize the sphere of influence of their own house, and be willing to work with their neighbors over time. . r - - - T - - - T - - -r - - 1 - -, I I I , I I I I I I I I I \ I I I I \ : I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t - - 4 - - - 1" - - ~ - - -\~'- 7 I ; I! : I I ~ I I I I 1\. I \ \ \11~ I I I I kf"1Ir!' r I I __ - ~ _ _ - -,_ - '.... - _ _ l... _ .... Diagram illustrates the idea of "sphere of influence." Every new dwelling, alteration, addition, or even minor change. has an effect on the neighboring houses and on the neighborhood as a whole. These changes can either contribute to the neighborhood or detract from it. Guidelines to encourage neighborhood enhancement are the subject of this guide. These two buildings are on Garfield just outside of the ETN. It is a good illustration of the principle that "no house is an island." Six triplexes were built in an area of smaller single-family homes. This image shows the relationship between two buildings when consideration for the effect on neighboring buildings is not a priority. . NO HOUSE IS AN ISLAND A house is surrounded by several other houses, a street and possibly an alley, and the house influences those other houses and public spaces. There is of course a legal boundary around the house, but the influence of the house, and the yard and garden, extends beyond that boundary. When making changes, it is important to consider this influence. For example, think about what happens at the edge of the lot. Most people would agree that a solid concrete- block wall at the edge is unpleasant-even though the owner of the lot may have the legal right to put it there. A hedge, or the archetypal white picket fence is more agreeable to most people. True, "good fences make good neighbors" -but what makes for a good fence? That fence, depending on the neighbors, may be one that is low, that provides for privacy near important windows, but is somewhat permeable in places. Low places allow for a neighborly chat or for sunlight to reach the plants on the other side of the fence. A high fence may be necessary to protect privacy on a busy street or to contain pets. A fence, at the intersection of two people's spheres of influence, is an example of how the actions of one property owner may augment and improve an adjacent property-and thereby help the overall feeling of neighborliness in the neighborhood. Another example of influence is the size and shape of the house, relative to other houses on the street and to the street itself. When houses are compatible with each other, there is a sense that they are together contributing to the character of the street and of a whole neighborhood. A row of houses with a similar setback from the street will feel like it is "one thing" - unified, like the walls that enclose a well-proportioned room. Since houses have an influence beyond their own lots, part of their responsibility is to help shape the street to be something the neighborhood as a whole can be proud of. The streetscape does not stop at the property line of the houses, but includes the yard, porch, and the house itself as part of its experience. The guidelines in this "Citizens' Guide" have all been developed with this principle in mind: Houses affect properties and public spaces beyond their own legal boundaries. The quality and character of a traditional neighborhood depends on people's understanding the effect that changes to their own property have on spaces beyond their own, and making sure that changes will enrich their own neighborhood. GOOD NEIGHBORS COOPERATE When people look beyond their property boundaries and interact constructively with their neighbors, it is possible to make changes that benefit everyone. Two anecdotes from neighborhoods in Eugene illustrate it best: For many years, Steve lived in a house adjacent to a vacant lot with pear and apple trees. The lot's owner was a friend, and Steve had permission to use it for his own garden. But when Frank, the lot's new owner, bought the vacant lot and built a house there, Steve was deprived of his garden. Over the ensuing years, Steve gradually re-configured his own lot, creating a new garden out of his side yard, and moving his driveway adjacent to Frank's lot and house. For privacy, Steve also , I I booocYo: , - I sr ' ~ == I 1 , Garden ===- I Steve's I -= \ House l... - - - - __ _1__.... _ - ... 1 tYoobo---il : ~':" : -+-yl ~;"roe" , \news ~\ I' I ~ ~ I L.... __-_-.1.--- _......t New driveway and landscape buffering Diagram shows the relationship between the two properties of Steve and Frank and how the changes they made altered and improved each of their properties and the neighborhood as a whole. . wanted to build a solid fence on that boundary right in front of one of Frank's view windows. This could have been a problem for Frank, but the two discussed the issue, and agreed on a compromise to a solid tall fence. Frank agreed to landscape his yard in way that softened the boundary and also provided the privacy Steve wanted. Now, several years later, the plants have grown, Steve has his privacy and Frank is very happy with the dappled light and views of greenery through his window. What could have been a loss for both owners was turned into a benefit through discussion, compromise, and a shared desired to make improvements to the larger space around both homes. A second illustration of neighbors working out changes for the better is that of Elizabeth, Julie, and Roger, all owners of houses along a somewhat busy street. Elizabeth's house was designed to be very close to the street, and when it was built it stood out relative to the adjacent houses (including Julie's house). But over the years, Julie built a tall fence on her property line, and Roger, on the other side of Elizabeth, planted a tall hedge along the sidewalk. So now, Elizabeth's house seems quite comfortable in its place, set back a bit from Julie's fence and Roger's hedge. The effective "building line" has moved forward toward the street, giving that block a very pleasant street edge, although somewhat different then the same street edge of the past. Again, the influence of one house on another contributed toward the gradual evolution and improvement of the neighborhood over time, because all three owners were interested in changing their homes in ways that complemented each other, and contributed to a more successful whole. . WHAT ARE DESIGN GUIDELINES? Design guidelines, with an associated design review process, are a common form of regulation in communities in Oregon and other states. Design guidelines are often employed to guide changes brought about by infill development, redevelopment, and renovations within older, traditional neighborhoods. The more distinctive and definable the character of a place, the easier it is to create and implement design guidelines, since the buildings and landscape that create the dominant character and vocabulary are obvious and their characteristics merely need to be described and applied within a regulatory structure. Good examples are places such as Santa Fe, New Mexico; and locally, the commercial area of Sisters, Oregon. Older neighborhoods that have more subtle character require more work to define their salient features. This guide attempts to define these characteristics for one older neighborhood in Eugene, and articulate them as a means to preserve the neighborhood's character. Some of the patterns and guidelines are specific to the ETN, but most are applicable to a number of close to downtown older neighborhoods in Eugene. This Citizens' Guide is a working document. It is issued in the spirit of participation in a conversation that needs to occur at the community level and at the policy level in Eugene. Citizens and policy makers should be working toward a comprehensive solution to satisfying larger policy goals, while still retaining for all of Eugene the increasing rare and valued cultural asset: our collection of older traditional neighborhoods. . This document proposes for the first time in Eugene, a set of guidelines for an older traditional neighborhood, the ETN, that encourage the preservation of characteristic patterns of the neighborhood. These guidelines, in tandem with a possible future design review process, could become part of a planning process in certain special contexts in Eugene. This possibility has been discussed in terms of an "alternative path" by some policy makers. The guidelines, as they are presented here, are not being proposed for adoption. They are presented in the spirit of education, further conversation, and no doubt debate, about Eugene's older neighborhoods and also to advance the discussion about the process of planning regulation through design review. Alongside the design guidelines are brief descriptions of the clear and objective standards that are currently being proposed by the City of Eugene. These proposed standards, specifically created for the ETN, are dispersed throughout the document in the sidebars near the guidelines that address the same or similar issue. This document strives to answer some of the questions that have arisen in the recent past by planning commissioners, city counselors and the public regarding the creation of a design review process in Eugene. This document sheds light on these questions, through the example of this set of guidelines: · What exactly is meant by design review? · What criteria does a design review process use to make judgements about development? · If the answer to the above question is "some kind of design guidelines," what might an example of design guidelines look like for an older traditional neighborhood in Eugene? Design guideline-based regulation, at its heart, subscribes to the view that one of the wonderful . qualities of older, living neighborhoods is that nothing repeats exactly, and there are no absolute answers and rules. Instead there are general patterns and trends that develop over time as neighborhoods grow and evolve. It is the enduring pattern, not the individual structutes, that truly give the neighborhood its historic and traditional character. Design guidelines attempt to preserve the existing patterns, but remain flexible as well, to account for changing attitudes and evolving perceptions about development in a particular neighborhood. DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION The document is organized in a loose hierarchical fashion beginning with large neighborhood-scale issues, and ending with small building detail issues. Many of the individual guidelines discussed here are inseparable from other guidelines, but in order to discuss them and propose specific guidelines they are broken down into discrete sections. Diagrams or photos, as necessary ENTRANCES AND PORCHES Key l"e.,_ of h'ldidonal. ho_in the ETN IR their llrool. ofteD. centraUy ,laud porch. IlId deuJy vislMe enttlea. lhil.:hlUllCteriltic u an important put ohhc front-to-back ,auem d1sc1UHd PRYiDIPI,.. lJK, variom Iypl."!l ofholl&l'S built in flu- ETN tml pof(fu,s very dilt<<"ndy. lhe Cnftml.ln bunllllo.....8 b)'r,,,dandgra.ciousflllrioluvirwaludlC'dl.lfacter IO"...lIlal"i"l..r:minl!tIlC.....II"lla..fsl".~kaJing into a hon..,. lk I'lfe" is II", 6fendrd rhrnhotd. Aclllu", """,I ETN bun""kMr..pruantatr.. oI1h.c1"f~..wywilh.laf""coYl"d porchlndlformlIWllI'-ylo1lle'idlW&lk. Clear and objective standard proposed by the City of Eugene for the ETN Special Area Zone GUIDELINES Clear ~try. Dwdlillgs .Mul.! h,,,,, "'1mb dm lR'visiblrfromrbtltTUf.lnVllrnll,fronlooon; .houldbrind",w1lIl'[ll",do!ltOOlforhrJttUf,or opt'ningdirO'Crlyonloosrr<<l-hcinIlJiontl'ooch. Doors wtth windows. Front doo", should hav" windOM uoociacl"<.1 will. thelD, cirhn in I.... door ~ndl"r:dmflinglfu,do"r. UN,b1e porctMs. A ,,,,w,..1 &onl Il(\ro. sll<"dd be orit","'\ 10 lhe saul ~1l<1 sha.l1 be visibk from the public rlghr...,f-w~y. Tht rorch .ball haw I slIP: ~nddeplhdu.rtnrou~t'J.illingandgl'ffling.A C,'mininll,mdtl'lhdufaCltriuspo.oi,ivt\lA(ful ron:lln Ihl' an work as 5Ocill.p"as StfHt.fKIng stllrtel .nlrllS. A nmlli-uni, bulldingwirhl.hlmitllrry("ollrlorroW"ryard .h"uldh~wlllrntf)'rhltf"""lhr'In'ff. Individualuniuilllmu1ri-unilbuildingshlll l"'v"frolud"'.B"-"drxrrriufrnuy"-.......dll"', IKln:hrsor""try'zo",,",Mrhlrdislingui.lrmtlll ftomothcrunioond",lol. I STREET FRONT FACADE AND ENTRY: No .,nd,rtb for non-mvIIi- IlfTlilyhousing. P~ed .-.d....:Thlm.in feeltdldUwmajorctw.llinglh.U l_thellre.t.Oncornerlot.wiIh mulllplel.l'\ll&,,*,,,,unit.n.lll_. IlfMI. ThI entry door dthe m.jor unit Ihllll f,oelhelllfMI, or open onIo'lIIrM1-llCingporch.Ooorshall bevilliblelromtllellrMI II Description of the pattern drawn from observations of the ETN Discussion of issues affecting the pattern Guidelines . NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT MAP It) o ~ Whiteaker Neighborhood ~ u.. Park and River 6th and 7th Commercial Strip / I Industrial Area 7th Ave ---, Chambers Reconsidered Study Area Frontier Market l3 Park Traditional Neighborhood similar to ETN Downtown Core 11th Ave 11th Avenue Commercial l 13th Ave "0 0; 'E '" C!l c o '" ~ Ql ...., \ \ \ \ , , Low Density Residential Fairgrounds 18th Ave The diagram above is a "cognitive map" of the ETN and its surroundings, showing the locations of important nearby features. The map highlights the elements of residents' mental pictures of the area based on discussions and feedback gathered during the Cambers Reconsidered public process. Traditional neighborhoods, as distinguished from more recently developed neighborhoods, are partially defined by their close proximity to a downtown area as well as local neighborhood commercial areas, parks, and open space. There are no parks within the ETN boundaries, but a range of open space options are nearby in several locations. II NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Traditional neighborhoods are usually found no more than a mile or two from the centers of older downtowns. Some of the neighborhoods that we now consider "close- in" were originally considered to be in outlying areas. An example in Eugene is the area just east of the University of Oregon. This was considered far enough from downtown in the early 1900's that some well-off families had a "summer" house near the University so they could be free from the bustle, dirt, and smells of early 20th- century downtown Eugene. Most neighborhoods that we now consider traditional are located within easy walking distance of downtown. The ETN is about a 20-minute walk from Chambers Street, located at the western edge of the ETN to Willamette Street. Walkable commercial areas are another key feature of traditional neighborhoods. Blair Street is a vital commercial place for many ETN residents. It is a close by place with true neighborhood commercial character, including restaurants, shops, and services. Blair Street has a funkiness and diversity that give it a clear identity, and make it a place that draws people. The commercial areas within the Chambers Study Area do not exhibit this same quality, but could in the future with carefully considered development. Parks and open space are limited in the immediate vicinity of the ETN. Martin Luther King, Jr. Park is a small park west of Chambers, and Monroe Park is a larger neighborhood park to the east. For larger expanses of greenspace, ETN residents need to go south to the school grounds and park areas from 13th to 18th Avenues east of Chambers, or to the parks along the Willamette River in the Whiteaker Neighborhood. r Ii Blair Street cuts through the Whiteaker Neighborhood and part of the Jefferson Westside Neighborhood at an angle creating unique block shapes. It is one of the most vibrant and eclectic neighborhood commercial areas in Eugene; many people in the ETN think of this as their neighborhood commercial area. Monroe Park is east of the ETN but it serves as a strong landmark and important open space to residents further to the west in the ETN. The park has had a difficult history, but in recent years the neighborhood and the City of Eugene have worked hard to make this a model neighborhood park enjoyed by everyone. II ETN SPECIAL AREA ZONE D Ium IH gJI]!E) I!crE CD Lll1llCJ Ih{tj W~lrtd [Jrl]] tJJI8 Dl~Fr~OBliE~ '6tmlif ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ r.ltl1r ~~ ffij~ m rrtmj~ ~ 13th Avenue 11th is a high volume street but has the same basic development pattern as the "interior" streets nearby. . This map shows the area known as the East Traditional Neighborhood (ETN) Typical "interior" street in the ETN with wide landscaped area between curb and sidewalk. Image of an alley in the ETN. Alleys have a wide range of qualities in the neighborhood. STREET ORGANIZATION AND CHARACTER The ETN streets are organized in a grid. Traffic is distributed through the neighborhood more evenly than in a typical suburban development. Though traffic is more dispersed, there is still a variety of street types and traffic levels in the neighborhood. This is pardy due to local discontinuities such as T-intersections, and to variations in street widths, parking arrangements, and destinations. Street closures and traffic calming measures can alter the traffic How in a neighborhood, decreasing it in one area, but possibly increasing it in another. There are always neighborhood issues about preserving the pattern of connected streets versus protecting certain streets from traffic. One consequence of the existing street organization, common to older neighborhoods, is seen in the development history of 11 th east of Chambers. 11 th has evolved over time to become a fast moving, high volume avenue, but the pattern of development retains characteristics of the quieter "interior" streets found between 7th and 11 tho Houses are similar in size and type (though on average slightly larger), they front the street in similar ways, and the public realm of sidewalk, plantings, and front yard is organized in the same way as low volume streets. A primary characteristic of the grid street system is the number of travel options through the neighborhood. This is a basic distinction between traditional neighborhoods and "cul-de-sac" suburban development. This aerial photo fragment from the ETN illustrates the overall "grain" of the neighborhood. This "grain" is a combined function of block size, lot size, street layout, and building size and placement. Filmore Street is a unique street type in the City of Eugene; its character is somewhere between a small street and a wide alley. II 330' \'"'--["--,,--- ,- -\---r ----"\ \ I : , I I I I I , I I' I , I I I '-----i : I : I I I I \ I I . I I I ... \ -;' t ....-_.L___, I --- --. I I I 1 . I, . I I r-_----.1- . \ I I g ~-----t--t----\ : (") , I I t- - -I - - - '" I I' I I I I t I I' \ I- - - T - - , I r- _ _.L : ' , , I I I \ I I I I , I \ I I.--__J. : I , : I: l I 'I I, I l.-_-'_ _1.._ _1_ _ ,,__,- ___.... Typical block without alley, Roughly half the blocks in the ETN do not have alleys. This example is square, some blocks are slightly rectangular. Eugene does not have many of the long skinny blocks found in some other cities. 330' r----r-- - "T ---r---"" I t t I ' I \ I I I I I I-----t I I \ \ I I I \ I I \-----J..-r--+- - _J.____J I I I I I t I, I o L__-__".l,__..1_--____....I ~ r--'--'--l--r-----"T , I \ I I I I I I \ I \ \ I : I I""--r--.!. I I I I I I : I I 'I , I I I 1 I , , I I I I I I l I I, I I ...... ______..I.__-'__...!.__J.__J Typical block with an alley. There are a number of variations to these two basic patterns within the ETN. Two ETN blocks have a 'T alley intersection. Filmore street is an unusually small street that functions like a highly developed alley. II BLOCK SIZE AND CHARACTER Blocks range in size from approximately 2 1/2 to 3 acres with an average of 15-20 lots. These block sizes are small for older traditional neighborhoods, but give the ETN and other Eugene neighborhoods an important part of their character. The pattern of block size and gridded streets is a scale-defining element of the neighborhood, and is also a fixed element unlikely to change or evolve like other charac- teristics in these guidelines. Blocks with alleys have a stronger "block-unit" identity; neighbors tend to know each other because they share an alley. In blocks without alleys, it is the street that typically forms the coherent "unit." These distinctions can be subtle but are important to how the neighborhood is perceived by those who live in it. The social function of the alleys is an important consideration in the development of new infill projects. Another characteristic of blocks in the ETN is the relative flatness of the terrain. Blocks in other neighborhoods in which the grid and the uniform block size and shape continue up and over sloped contours have another set of more complex issues when it comes to the guidelines that follow. In some hilly terrain, the grid system is abandoned for a system that responds to the slopes, usually main streets run parallel to the slopes and smaller streets wind their way upward. Many of the characteristics that are outlined in these guidelines are lost in these areas. The main reason is the lack of "web" continuity between streets. ALLEY CHARACTER Alleys in the ETN accommodate residential service functions as well as providing housing options and pedestrian access. Alleys in the ETN are typically (but not always) unpaved. The alleys in this neighborhood support a mix of residential uses that include back yards, small dwellings, parking, garages, trash collection, utility connections and in some cases, shared open space. Alleys are eclectic in their uses and their visual character-their development being driven by a wide range of individual choices about how the alley can serve each owner's needs. In general, buildings built on alleys are smaller than houses that front the streets. The best of these help to create a "cottage-like" environment. Many alleys have lots with yards that provide private open space to the residents. The collective impact of the private open space is an important part of the overall "green" character appreciated by residents in the neighborhood. Some alleys are more developed and serve as small lanes for houses, garages, and accessory buildings. Many of these more developed alleys, especially the ones with dwellings which respect the small-scale context, are seen as positive contributions to the ETN character, enriching the neighborhood while providing a wider range of housing options. Roughly half the residential blocks in the Study Area have alleys. Alleys vary in width from 12-16 feet; 14 feet is typical. Houses on alley blocks are often developed with garages on the alleys. Many houses on blocks with or without alleys have their garages to the side and behind the street facade of the dwelling unit. Alleys can provide an opportunity to add needed housing through modest scaled development while maintaining neighborhood character. A range of alleys and alley character. A fine examples of a "cottage- like" alley house in the ETN. This house has all of the basic patterns found on streets in the area, but in reduced scale. . r - - - - - -,- - - f - - --r - - r - - --1 , ' I .' I : : I t r" I ...-----, tit I tit t I I . I J ~ I ....-----..--4 ...--'-----..., t I, I tit I :...______.L-_ J_______J ....-,--,- -,. --l--T--r--' : t I I I I I I I I I I \ 1 t I 1----1 1 I 1 I I-_-~ 1 lIt I I I I I 1 1 , I I 1__-4 I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I , I 1 1 L__..!__....l_ _...!___L__L__J...__J Above is a block found in the ETN. This particular block has more variety in lot size, shape, and configuration than most others in the neighborhood The basic proportions (squares on up to 3:1 rectangles) are as important to ETN character as absolute lot size. 50-60' t-----rt 1----- -t-t- 01 I I ~I I I 01 I I LOI I 1 I I I l----__+_~ 50-65' +-----....--1' I I I I I I I I I I I +-____+_..J. I I I 1 I 01 I I (01 I I ~I I 01 I NI I I ~ I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I J...----I--L The lot sizes are generally found in the size ranges and proportions shown above, falling into these two "shape-types," square and rectangular. II LOT SIZE AND SHAPE Lot size and shape is a primary characteristic of the neighborhood scale. For instance, lot width is a key attribute because it creates the general rhythm along the street and perceived scale of the neighborhood. Lot width also indirecdy controls dwelling size, shape, and character as houses are designed for the relatively narrow lots, and often with a driveway along one property line. Characteristics of ETN Lots: · Lots are of one of two typical sizes: "Small Square Lots" 50-60' x 50-60' "Long Lots" 50-65' x 120-160' · Lot widths vary in a narrow range within the ETN. Combined with other traditions such as parking to the side and prominent entries, lot width is an important generator of the ETN character. . Lot divisions are orthogonal (at right angles to each other.) . Lots facing east-west running streets are more regular than the lots along north-south running streets. These are the "corner lots" and have been divided in any number of different ways within the neighborhood. The smallest lots typically face the north-south streets. . The dimensional range of lots is one of the defining characteristics of a neighborhood. Even within the detached housing model, some neighborhoods will have much larger, deeper or wider lots. The size and c consistency of block dimensions in the ETN give the neighborhood its distinctive lot dimensions. Blocks without alleys will naturally have deep lots and fewer opportunities for the variety of backyard uses that alleys have. Blocks with alleys have a range of options. For instance a long lot may be partitioned to create a "street lot" and "alley-only access lot" if land use regulations permit it. Whole blocks generally do not change in size, but lot sizes and shapes do change through partitioning or aggregation. Some neighborhoods redevelop by changing the lot size in order to accommodate different kinds of building or dwelling types. Lot lines have been "in motion" in the ETN since the neighborhood was platted. There are many examples oflot lines that have been moved or traded, neighbor to neighbor, to meet mutually beneficial circumstances. The flexibility to make these small changes gives this older neighborhood a large part of its desirable character and texture, through occasional irregularity and unique circumstances. This can be a delightful quality, as long as the underlying order and patterns are adhered to under most circumstances. GUIDELINES · Maintain lot characteristics. As lots change over time, the following characteristics of ETN lots should be respected: 1. Orthogonality 2. Regular shape 3. Width between 45' and 65' 4. Depth to width proportion of 1: 1 to 3: 1 5. Size between 4,500-9,000 square foot range. Lots outside this range require more careful design and planning to ensure compatibility. 5' 30' 20' r-----\ I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I ( I I I I 5' 30' 20' This size and shape has an important causal design relationship to the overall width and scale of the buildings on them. The illustration shows a simplified version of two general approaches to siting a house. When a drive is placed to one side, as in these diagrams, it further limits building scale options. PROPOSED CLEAR & OBJECTIVE STANDARDS LOT STANDARDS: Lots as narrow as 25' and an unlimited size are allowed in R-2. Proposed standards: Min. frontage width: 45'; Min. interior lot dimension: 45'; Max. lot size: 13,500 sf; Prohibit Flag Lots. II ~ ~------ ~ .~ t---. Streets cape Diagram Illustrating the semi-public and public realm. Notice that the porch is a part of this semi-public realm and is an important part of the layering toward more private spaces. This photo shows the consistency of setback and lot width found in parts of the ETN. II STREETSCAPE The streets cape is made up of all the elements from the street itself to the facades and front doors of the individual houses. These elements make up a gradient of spaces that transition from the public street to the private house. Front yards are a key element of this transition. Some front yards are functional for the homeowner, in that they have productive gardens or usable outdoor spaces, but these characteristics are auxiliary to the basic roles of providing a semi-public realm for arrival and departure and a buffer from the public sidewalk and street. The shared space of the streetscape is what gives the ETN much of its character and makes older traditional neighborhoods such a pleasure for the pedestrian. The typical layering of spaces includes a street edge that encourages neighborhood parallel parking, a wide planting strip with street trees (generally wider than those of most new developments), a sidewalk, and a planted front yard. Last, forming the backdrop for the activities of the public room of the street, are the front porch and house facade, often with windows and a door for occupants to connect to the street from within the private realm. These layers promote neighborliness and a more cohesive neighborhood by creating a street as a well defined shared outdoor room. GUIDELINES · Street edge and parking. Residents of the ETN generally park either on the street in parallel spaces, or in private driveways. Retain on-street parking to help buffer the pedestrian zone of the sidewalk from the automobile zone of the street. · Street trees. Street and front yard trees provide the broadest brush stroke to the landscape quality and "green" character of this neighborhood. Street trees contribute to the characteristic rhythm along the streets in the ETN, and create outdoor spaces scaled to the pedestrian. Maintain existing street trees, and plant new trees in a compatible way where appropriate. · Sidewalks and parking strip. Sidewalks and parking strip landscaping are part of the system of layering from the street edge to the front door of houses, and they provide pedestrian circulation through the ETN. Where missing, replace. · Front yard. Landscape the front yard to help reinforce the public and semi-public character of the traditional front yards in the neighborhood. Avoid impervious surfaces whenever possible. · Transparent fences. Use low, small scale fences that serve as a semi-transparent layering in front yards if a more distinct buffer between public and private space is desired. · Clear front path. The entry walk or path should lead directly from the public sidewalk to the porch or front door. A good example of how cars play an important role in the layering and buffering between the street, sidewalk, and front yard. A good example of the elements of the street front facade: an ample porch, door facing the street or opening onto a front porch, formal walkway to the sidewalk, main living space with windows toward the street. II PROPOSED CLEAR & OBJECTIVE STANDARDS ALLEY GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY: No current standard. Proposed standards: Max. garage door width within 30' setback: 18', or (2) at 9' each. Max. driveway width within 30' setback: 20'. PROPOSED CLEAR & OBJECTIVE STANDARDS ALLEY OPEN SPACE: No current standards for non-multifamily housing. Proposed standards: Alley Open Space shall abut alley on at least 25% of lot width at the alley property line and be a minimum of 400 sf. Area in setbacks may be included. PROPOSED CLEAR & OBJECTIVE STANDARDS ALLEY-ONLY ACCESS: Alley-only access lots are not expressly allowed. Proposed standard: Allow alley-only access lots. . ALLEYSCAPE In contrast to streetscapes, "alleyscapes" are highly informal. Though there is housing along alleys, it is small in scale, informal in layout, and the relationship to the alley and to the main house on the street is varied and informal. Alley houses tend to be small and cottage-like, often occurring in lieu of a garage. In many cases alley houses are converted garages or have been built above garages. The varied texture of small buildings found along the alleys of the ETN is a pattern throughout Eugene's older neighborhoods. Since alley house development has not been well supported in Eugene, there are many that are not legal conversions, further hindering growth of an important housing type in close-in neighborhoods. . Alleys considered by residents to be positive places do have some discernible characteristics. Garages and Driveways One purpose of alleys is to provide a place for the storage of automobiles and for services such as trash collection, power lines and power drops to houses. New developments should balance the need to accommodate these functions. When the utility and storage functions become the dominant characteristic, the alley loses its mixed-residential character that residents enjoy. Balancing residential uses is key to successful alleys. Alley Open Space As the amount of housing along alleys has increased over the years, the character of some alleys has changed from primarily back yards with the occasional garage or garden shed to small scale residential lanes. Central to this balanced vision for alleys is the need for open space. c GUIDELINES Jl 1 Cottage-like houses. Alley houses and secondary I . I units should be visually subordinate to the main I house and should have a cottage-like character t I that supports the informal nature of ETN alleys. I I . Mix of housing types. To maintain the eclectic I character of alleys, a mix of residential uses is I encouraged. For example: a small dwelling above a I J shared garage, a shared yard and accessory garden building for two dwelling units, small cottage J1 house with small driveway and garage. . Respect privacy. Windows and doors on alley housing should be placed to support neighbors' pnvacy. . Eyes on the alley. Develop alley housing to promote "passive observation" of the alley. . Small garages. Garages and driveways should strive to be of limited scale and presence. Garages may serve a front or an alley house. The total JL width of a garage should only be a minor portion of the lot width along the alley. The remaining space may be a small dwelling unit or open space. . Create open space. As alley development takes place it is important to create open space that not only serves the alley house, but also the alley, just as the front yard of the main house serves the street. The diagrams above show a number of ways that open space can be provided near an alley cottage. II This house was expanded into a triplex. It illustrates many of the issues with maintaining the character of a traditional neighborhood and also allowing infill. Opinions vary, but generally this feels too dense to most ETN residents, even though it attempts to mitigate some potentially negative qualities. This development of six tri-plexes at the edge of the ETN has shifted the character of the area. The development is entirely devoted to serving the automobile II DENSITY The term density, used by planners, is usually used as an abstract measure of dwelling units per net acre. But here we are talking about how density interacts with housing types and neighborhood character. As density levels rise, housing types change in order to fit more units on a given piece of land. In the ETN the dominant housing type is the detached dwelling. The is an essential characteristic of the neighborhood. If density levels are to rise in the ETN because of metro land use policies, they should rise only so far as to retain the prevailing housing type and character of the neighborhood. This limit for neighborhood density could be termed "carrying capacity," the maximum density that the neighborhood can absorb without losing the single-family detached housing character. The ETN was zoned for duplexes in the 30's and has since had many modifications to the zoning regulations, all of which permitted higher densities than one house per lot. The actual built character, however has always been one "main" house per lot. Successful duplex developments in the area are modest in size and do not emphasize the "dual" aspect. Later duplexes broke with the tradition of single unit appearance, and stand out in the neighborhood as less compatible. Generally there is one primary dwelling on each lot, and in some cases there are small houses, cottages, or "granny" flats in the rear yard, especially on lots with alleys. N GUIDELINES · One main dwelling. When adding density to the neighborhood, maintain the pattern of one main dwelling per lot through the use of alley cottages, granny flats, garage conversions, and so on, serving as additional units. · Other units. Second and third units should be smaller and secondary to the main front unit facing the street. This duplex is about the same size and scale of many of the single family houses near it. The "paired halves" style that characterize later duplexes is down played in this house, even though there are clearly two side-by-side front doors. The modest scale helps this duplex fit in this predominately single-family neighborhood. PROPOSED CLEAR & OBJECTIVE STANDARDS DENSITY STANDARDS: A min. of 10 units/net acre and a max. of 28 unit/net acre required. Lots under 13,500 sf do have a minimum density requirement. Proposed modifications: Allowable units per lot: 1 unit per lot :s: 4,500 sf; 2 units per lot> 4,500 and :s: 9,200 sf; 3 units per lot> 9,200 sf. . The Chambers historic house. A higher quality older house in the ETN illustrating the positive qualities of using the roof volume for the second floor and breaking down the mass of the building using dormers and other roof elements. The pitch of this roof exceeds 12: 12. II HOUSES WITH CHARACTER The variety of house styles in the ETN- Craftsman, Cape Cod, Queen Anne-are essential to the feel of the neighborhood. The Craftsman bungalows, built in the early 1900's, tend to be the highest quality houses, while the Cape Cod-influenced homes built during the post-ware era tend be of lower quality construction. Most houses built more recendy have weak stylistic associations and have litde distinctive character. What is most important is that new houses have character-they should in fact be charming-in their overall form and in their details. The surest way to achieve this is to work within recognizable styles that are found in the ETN neighborhood. The neighborhood has gone through several shifts in the type, size, and quality of development. The historic Chambers House is a large "extended family" size Queen Anne style house. Its lot, a square roughly 100' on each side, is atypical for the neighborhood. The Craftsman bungalows are among the finest older houses in the neighborhood. Despite the building's fairly large footprint the perceived size of the large two-story structure is smaller because the second floor is usually partially or wholly within the roof volume. A large number of very small Cape Cod houses were built during the post-war building booms. These house do not have the higher quality detailing and were typically smaller than some of the older homes. In the 70's and 80's a number of dwellings considered "out of character" with the neighborhood were constructed in the ETN. The builders tended to ignore historic patterns, and instead attempted to create inexpensive housing that would yield a return on investment. Since the 90's the neighborhood has been witnessing incremental infill development that is slowly changing the traditional housing patterns. GUIDELINES · Reinforce the positive. Contribute to the traditional neighborhood patterns by choosing dwelling types and styles that reinforce the positive qualities identified in this guide. Craftsman bungalows, cottages, and Arts and Crafts influenced designs are a good fit for preservation of traditional character. · Good design and good craftsmanship. Employ architectural detail and craft that support the neighborhood character. Consider using Architects or designers who do this kind of residental work. The images below give indication of the range of house types, styles, and qualities found in the ETN. Though there isn't one clear style that dominates the neighborhood, the best of the houses exhibit a modest crafted style found in bungalows and arts and crafts influenced designs. II t' _. - - - -, I I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I Characteristic of the ETN. r- --()- - i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I \ I I I I I Characteristic of the ETN. This pattern also allows for the backyard to be used as private open space or for a small cottage dwelling. II r----' I I I I I I I I I I ( I I I I I I I I I I Discouraged. r----.., I I I I I I I I I I \ I I I I I I I I \ Not characteristic of the ETN. Discouraged. RELATIONSHIP OF HOUSE TO LOT, STREET, AND YARD Among the most important characteristics of a house are its position on the property, and the way it interacts with the street, the side yard, and the back yard. Houses in the ETN contribute to the character of the streets by being located toward the front of the lot and by having entrances and well-proportioned view windows facing the street. There is a consistent front-to-back orientation in the neighborhood. Side yards are for access and light, not for views. Front-facing windows allow residents to keep "eyes on the street." Residents can observe the goings on in the neighborhood, and help preserve neighborhood security. A house's facade is the face that the house presents to the neighborhood, and its "expression" determines the mood it creates in its environs. A facade with windows and a clear entrance engages or welcomes passers by. An austere facade, a hidden entrance, or a blank street wall turns a cold shoulder to the pedestrian, and stands out from the traditional buildings in the neighborhood. Front Building Setback The location of the main dwelling relative to the street side property line is a defining characteristic of traditional neighborhoods. Generally larger streets and larger and more expensive neighborhoods will have deeper setbacks. In the ETN the houses are generally set back between 10' and 25', with most around 20'. When building or altering a dwelling in the ETN it is important to look at the nearby context and determine how a new or modified building should relate to its neighbors and to the street. On 11 th, for example, a 10' setback may be too close to the street, and along Filmore a 25' setback may seem too far back on the property. Front to back configuration The ETN, like many older traditional neighborhoods, has a strong front and back pattern, with limited focus on the sides of the dwellings. The front is usually dominated by an entry, and often a large covered porch. The entry and the porch typically face the street directly. Front parking is usually a narrow drive tight to a side yard property line. The garage typically has one door and is set back from the facade of the house. Large windows face the front and back yards. The larger rooms of the dwelling unit also orient themselves to the front or back yard. The side walls of houses have windows, but they tend to be small, allowing some daylight, but limiting views to neighbors. The composition of facades is also much more formal on the front, and to some extent the rear, while the sidewalls are usually the result of window placement favoring function over design composition. GUIDELINES · Locate appropriate setback. Respect dominant setback of immediate context. · Face the street. Main unit should face the street. If the lot will have multi-family housing, the larger, "main" unit should face the street. · Main house forward. Locate the main dwelling unit toward the front of the lot. · Modest development in backyard. The rear lot should have less intense building development or simply gardens and open space. House that is set back much further than the typical pattern found in the ETN The image shows the positive effect of a consistent setback of house to sidewalk. The front yards and facades of these house are a key contributor to the public room of the street. PROPOSED CLEAR & OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FRONT YARD SETBACK: 10' setback in R-2. Proposed modifications: Maintain the 10' minimum setback, add a max. setback of 25' . Most of the larger houses in the ETN are designed with their large second floors within the roof volume. PROPOSED CLEAR & OBJECTIVE STANDARDS BUILDING HEIGHT: The current standard limits max. building height to 35' and the max. accessory building height to 25'. Proposed modifications: Max. height limit: 30' Max. street facing dwelling height: 30' Max. other detached dwelling height: 20' Max. accessory building height: 20' Alley-only access lot building height: 20' II MASS AND SCALE Houses in the ETN come in many shapes and sizes, but all of them appear modest from the street. The most common examples are small one or one-and-a-half story houses. Even the largest ETN houses disguise their size by having second Hoors within the roof volume and by using dormers for windows and to extend the usable area of the second Hoor. Some of these houses will remain for many years to come, but others will be upgraded in size through additions or even rebuilding on the lot. The challenge is to allow flexibility for a future generation of housing alterations and house types, while encouraging the positive qualities of the best older housing stock in the ETN. The width of buildings in the ETN falls into a narrow and consistent range. The width is a function of lot size and shape and sometimes a one-ear-width driveway to one side. On a 55' wide lot with a driveway, a 5' setback on one side and a 20' setback on the other, this would allow a 30' house. GUIDELINES · Break down building mass. Break down and vary the mass of buildings using smaller elements, including dormers, bay projections, and upper floors that are smaller in square feet than ground floors. · Step down. Minimize perceived scale of infill buildings by stepping down toward interior yards and the street. ,,:g! ,,:g! (ij::J1 "' ~ (ij::J1 >- >.. Y >- >.. >-1:::1 " >-1:::1 ~~ .' , ~& Cii 0.,..___.......______. ~ Ci ,..........'Iio------......------...Cii 0 ........-30' Primary Structure: Maximum Building Height at E J:! ~.:~~~~' " E a:! Center of Main Roof Slope 1 ~,o ~(;j, , 1 . ~~, , . ..+------,~~o~~..---.---................------~~---...:.....+---.... 20' Secondary Structure: Maximum Building Height (;j, "1 at Center of Main Roof Slope , , , , . , ,~ I I I . I I I I 1 ~ I I 1 i Ground Plane J' ! J-- Buildable Area Varies Depending 1 on Property Width · Occupy the roof volume. Whenever possible, place upper floors within the volume of the main roof to give the appearance of small dwellings. · Height at the center. Place the tallest portion of the building to the center of lot so that at the lot lines the building mass has the character of a one or one-and-a-half story house. · Main house on the street. The dwelling unit closest to the street should be the largest and tallest dwelling. The height of other units or accessory units should be smaller--" cottage-like" if detached. Occupy the roof volume. Preferred and Typical vs, Less Preferred PROPOSED CLEAR & OBJECTIVE STANDARDS INTERIOR YARD SLOPED SETBACK: 5' setback on interior lot lines. Proposed modifications: 5' interior yard setback. From a point 12' vertical, 45 degree sloped setback. Exceptions: Dormers and gable end walls within certain parameters. 12' Spring Point Building Setback Shifts to a 45 Deg. Angle 5'-0" Interior Yard Setback . \ ~ r ~ I I I I ilJ[J ! I J I I I J L-,- -_ ____ _ -.l_ __ __ _ __...: The house on the right and the house on the left have managed to situate their small side windows in such a way that privacy has not been an issue. This diagram shows how an addition to the left could orient it's windows to the backyard to avoid conflicting with the already existing neighbor's privacy. . PRIVACY Maintaining appropriate privacy for spaces within the neighborhood is essential to domestic life. If areas which one expects to be private are too exposed, they cease to be comfortable and usable to their owners. The interior of a house is the most private area on a property, and its privacy can be retained by locating view windows away from those of neighboring houses. The backyard is a semi- private area that also must be moderately protected from unwanted visual access. Privacy between two houses Locating the main house toward the front of a lot may result in houses directly next to each other. When houses on adjacent lots are located near each other, care should be given to place windows our of the direct line of vision of the neighboring house's windows. This applies to both the main houses at the front of the yard and accessory units located in the backyard. New infill housing should defer to the window placements of pre-existing neighboring homes. Privacy between houses and adjacent backyards One of the characteristics most enjoyed by the current residents of the ETN is the relatively undeveloped nature of backyards. When development to the rear of lots does occur, successful examples maintain the privacy between units by considering the placement of both the building and its windows. It's important to consider the semi-private nature of backyards. A house which is adjacent to a yard, instead of another house, may feel imposing to the neighboring yard. Houses which loom over and look down into a neighboring back yard should be avoided. GUIDELINES · Maintain privacy of the yard. New construction should strive to maintain privacy of neighbors' backyards through the placement of building volumes to the front of the lot for the main house, and to the rear of the lot for secondary dwellings. Windows, setbacks, screening, and second-story setbacks can help maintain privacy if new houses must be located next to existing backyards. · Respect privacy of the house. Take care that the windows required for each new dwelling do not occur directly across from windows in an existing house. Dwelling units can respect the privacy of neighbors' houses through orientation and size of windows, screening, and landscaping. Accessory dwellings can be placed and oriented to help maintain privacy between units. 10'.OW Setback To ExleriQf , Surtace Of Upper I Level Windows i i i i i +-5'-0' 10'.0. Setback To Exterior . Surface Of Upper I Level WIndows i i i i i +-5"0"-'> The diagrams above show two different ways the Interior Yard Second Floor Setback may be applied to satisfy the clear and objective proposed standard. New infill duplex in the ETN that "looms" over the backyard of a small post-war house. PROPOSED CLEAR & OBJECTIVE STANDARDS INTERIOR YARD SECOND FLOOR WINDOW SETBACK: No current standard. Proposed standards: Second floor windows must be set back 10' from side yard property line. . One of the typical conditions found in ETN, a narrow drive to the side of the house with or without a small garage behind the main facade of the house. i - - - - - -, \ I I I I I I I I I I I :~: I I \ . , L_ - - t -: r--";'~1 , till I I I I \ I I I '(J ( I I I r I \ I L_____~ II \----, I I I I I I I I I I II] I I I I I \ I L_ - - t 1 The locations of the garages shown here are typical in the neighborhood. These and similar locations are encouraged in order to de-emphasize the automobile at the front of the house. PARKING AND GARAGES The traditional pattern in the neighborhood is to minimize automobile-related structures such as garages and driveways in favor of landscaped areas or pedestrian circulation routes. Garages take a secondary role in the massing of the primary residences. The quality of ETN streets, landscaping, and houses give the neighborhood a texture that is scaled more to pedestrians than automobiles. This character can be maintained by de-emphasizing parking areas and garages, so that the pedestrian features of sidewalks, porches, and yards retain prominence. As discussed in "Streetscapes" above, on street parking contributes to the pedestrian character of the ETN by buffering pedestrians from the street and slowing down traffic through the neighborhood. Garages can have a strong influence on the character of a neighborhood. Garages located at the front of the lot present large blank walls to the sidewalk, may make the house entrance seem less visible and welcoming, and can obscure views from the house to the street. Driveways Driveways in the ETN are diminutive in character. They are typically small, usually one-car width, and placed to the side of lots. GUIDELINES · Garage is secondary. Design and locate garage so it is a secondary feature of a dwelling unit. Garage sizes should be modest; single garage doors are preferred over double wide garage doors. Place garage on alley if possible, or to the side of house, behind facade of the house, along side yard property line. · Minimal paving. Paving should be minimized to meet only the needs of vehicle access and parking. New curb cuts and driveways should be kept to a minimum. · Permeable paving. Parking surfaces should allow permeability when possible. This can be achieved by using: 1. "Grasscrete" 2. Tire strips with grass between. 3. Pavers that allow some drainage between the bricks, and also can serve as social spaces · Don't build over parking. Parking that is covered partially or in whole by a second floor is discouraged. Recent infill development in the ETN showing the incompatible garage location and driveway width. PROPOSED CLEAR & OBJECTIVE STANDARDS GARAGE DOOR SIZE AND DRIVEWAY: Garage setback: 18', Max. curb cut: 27'. Proposed modification: Retain garage setback of 18', add 6' setback behind main house facade. Proposed standards: Garages within a 30' setback from the street shall be limited to a maximum garage door width of 9' and a maximum garage door height of 8'. Max. driveway width: 13' within 30' setback. II This modest small dwelling is near the ETN. It is an example of small cottage infill providing a wider range of housing types, while at the same time contributing to the scale of the existing neighborhood. This triplex was added to the back of lot in the ETN creating a total of four units. This building is only several feet from a pre-war bungalow's back porch. The triplex dominates the building mass on the lot as well as the backyards of adjacent houses. . MULTIPLE DETACHED UNITS The infill of multiple buildings on sites in the ETN means the addition of multiple entrances and potentially significant parking areas. Development of multiple buildings on a lot must still respect the character of the ETN through deference to the main house, dear entrances, discreet parking, and differentiated building massing. Because the predominant development of the ETN is single-family homes, effort should be made to develop multiple buildings on a site within the character of the neighborhood. Even if several new dwellings are to be added to one site, one dwelling should remain the most significant house on the lot, located nearest the street. ~~i~iii~Uj~fBt1,Jlill ~'~~=~~- ;~~mlffi' 1I!W~1iIIW.'.'.' GUIDELINES · Prominent main house. If there is more than one unit on a lot, the main house (the house closest to the street) should be the larger dwelling. · Compressed layering. Provide a layering of spaces from public spaces to the private entries of each building. · Minimal paving. Provide shared driveways and parking to reduce the paved area on the lot. ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER When new construction occurs, each project must do its part to contribute to the ETN. Whether the project is a remodel, an addition, or a new home, it should be designed thoughtfully, with good proportions, balanced composition, and developed details. In many cases seeking professional design services rather than do-it-yourself will make a big difference in the outcome, but the first step is for everyone to understand what makes an authentic traditional house in this neighborhood. In traditional housing the roof is the dominant definer of character. The pitch of the roof and the relationship between the main roof and secondary roof elements do more than anything else to define the home and give it appropriate scale. Architectural elements such as windows, doors, bays, and porches are the features that give the home its identity and need to be placed and proportioned to contribute to the overall composition. Siding, trim, and color provide visual interest, texture, and fine-grained character. Authentic traditional homes have depth that comes from materials and details that have thickness. In contrast to the flatness found in newer "traditional" homes, older homes have subtle relief and shadow in their details. The guidelines in this section attempt to characterize these detail elements that make up the ETN in order to encourage compatible and harmonious renovations, additions, and development in the future. The compatibility of a new development can be achieved by choosing elements similar to (not necessarily identical to) elements found in the existing neighborhood. Good quality design is of equal importance to compatibility with the dominant neighborhood character. Good craftsmanship, intelligent site planning, and design respectful of neighbors and the shared "room" of street and front yards have a tremendous impact on the quality of the neighborhood. II Windows with true divided panes of glass (actual divisions of glass rather than plastic or wood inserts) are key to the look and feel of the older crafted houses. Windows also help reinforce a coherent style of a house as can be seen in these two images. Elm m Windows in traditional pre-war housing tend to have vertical oriented windows. Even when larger windows are used, they are typically made up of two or three "vertical" windows joined together. II WINDOWS Window size and placement has been discussed above in "Front-to-Back," but window quality, proportion and detail are important aspects of ETN character. Older style wood windows have depth and detail. Houses today are often built using inexpensive vinyl windows, typically with false divided lites of plastic snap-in grids. These windows appear flat. Higher quality windows distinguish traditional housing from newer " "h . mass ousmg. Divided lites create a layering effect in dense urban neighborhoods. The divisions in the window create solid surface areas on the window and draw the eye to the window itself as a screen-like architectural element. Modern windows often have slender frames, allowing little visual transition between window and wall. Trimming windows on new construction can add visual interest to the building as well as making it more compatible with others in the neighborhood. l!i:!i ~i!i~i~~~~ ~\\1i ~ ==== GUIDELINES · Wood-framed, small-paned windows. Use wood or wood clad traditional divided-lite windows if possible. · Vertical orientation. Windows should emphasize orientation and compositional groupings typically found in housing in older traditional neighborhoods. In older windows, proportions emphasize the vertical. · Trim windows. Use wood trim, especially on aluminum or vinyl windows, particularly when windows are set into siding. flj,i~~~~~i~fi~_l}~ =~ar~t~~~1t~i)1~~~t\WJi~~~ EXTERIOR MATERIALS The general character of the exterior of ETN dwellings is wood siding of a variety of types, but mostly horizontal clapboard lap siding. The use of a similar material in a variety of housing types and styles provides both unity and diversity, the variations on a theme that give the ETN its personality. The ubiquitous horizontal siding is sometimes used in conjunction with other building materials, including wood shakes and shingles, vertical siding, and the occasional brick chimney. Homes of newer construction often use vinyl siding, which is usually applied in a horizontal orientation. Vinyl and aluminum siding lacks some of the warmth and character of wood, particularly after several years of age. Wood "wears well" and over time gains the rustic character found in older traditional neighborhoods. GUIDELINES · Compatible horizontal siding. Select siding materials in keeping with the character of the ETN, including: 1. Painted small exposure lap siding 2. Cedar shingle siding (painted or unpainted) 3. Board and batten, or batten over sheet material. · Detailing on exposed facades. Window, door, and corner trim detailing is encouraged, especially the street-facing facades of the house. This detail image shows the kind of modest craft that is common to the best houses in the ETN. The horizontal wood siding along with window trim and key special details for the porch and entry make this a model of good practices for building in the ETN. This detail image is of a house outside the ETN but it is a good example of the crafted details found in the better quality houses of traditional neighborhoods. The style happens to be craftsman bungalow, but the material palette of horizontal and shingle siding, window and other architectural trim, as well as the quality wood framed windows themselves, can be a part of many good houses in other styles. . "'~ " A classic small ETN bungalow represents a clear visible entry with a large covered porch and a formal walkway to the sidewalk. PROPOSED CLEAR & OBJECTIVE STANDARDS STREET FRONT FACADE AND ENTRY: No standards for non-multi-family housing. Proposed standards: The main facade of the major dwelling shall face the street. On corner lots with multiple units, each unit shall face a street. The entry door of the major unit shall face the street, or open onto a street-facing porch. Door shall be visible from the street. . ENTRANCES AND PORCHES Key features of traditional houses in the ETN are their strong, often centrally placed porches and clearly visible entries. This characteristic is an important part of the front-to-back pattern discussed previously. The various types of houses built in the ETN treat porches very differently. The craftsman bungalow's layered and gracious entries serve as a model to emulate in forming the sequence of spaces leading into a home. A porch functions as an the extended threshold for comings and goings, and socializing. GUIDELINES · Clear entry. Dwellings should have entries that are visible from the street. In general, front doors should be in the wall plane closest to the street, or open directly onto a street-facing front porch. · Doors with windows. Front doors should have windows associated with them, either in the door and/ or next to the door. · Usable porches. A covered front porch should be oriented to the street and should be visible from the public right-of-way. The porch should have a size and depth that encourages sitting and greeting. A 6' minimum depth characterizes positive useful porches that can work as social spaces. · Street-facing shared entries. A multi-unit building with a shared entry court or courtyard should have an entry that faces the street. Individual units in a multi-unit building shall have front doors and exterior entry areas, either porches or entry "zones," that distinguish them from other units on the lot. FENCING Fences are sometimes necessary and desirable, but they should be done carefully at the boundary of the property-especially when they are constructed in the front yard. Traditional neighborhoods often have well-defined private outdoor spaces, but properties also tend to gracefully blend together as part of a whole, particularly along the street. In general, fences that strike this balance define the boundary without being harsh or too abrupt. Plantings along fences help soften their appearance as well. Front yard fences should be considered most carefully, since they have the biggest impact on the public realm and the character of the street. Fencing in the front yard of traditional neighborhoods serves a role in the layer of spaces that lead from the public realm to the private realm. Front yard fences are usually low and transparent. The classic picket fence is the archetypal and symbolic feature of traditional neighborhoods and is an appropriate feature in the ETN. Fencing a back or side yard can be desirable for privacy. The building code limits fencing to a reasonable height, and fences taller than this can seem imposing. It is especially desirable to make the upper portion of the fence more open even if the lower part is solid. Spaced-board fences offer a good balance of privacy and connection. GUIDELINES · Transparent wood fences. Fences should be wood and allow visibility and semi-transparency. · Vegetative fencing. Low hedges can also help differentiate front yard space while maintaining visibility. This house is near the ETN but not within it. The image is good example of a fence that has been carefully designed to be semi- transparent and a good contributor to the layering between the public sidewalk and the semi-public front yard. This house uses a low chain link fence which is a much less friendly fencing type for the pedestrian edge of the property. II Top: One of the exemplary houses in the ETN. The roof slope is about 10: 12 with almost the entire 2nd floor contained within the roof volume. Bottom: The shallow slope roof is one element that detracts from the traditional character of the neighborhood. PROPOSED CLEAR & OBJECTIVE STANDARDS ROOF FORM: No current standards. Proposed standards: Primary building roofs shall have a min. slope of 6:12. ROOF CHARACTER Roofs in the ETN are generally gabled, with dormers providing windows to second Hoors. Larger homes use a "cascade" of roofs to break down the perceived mass of the dwelling. The positive mass and scale found in the neighborhood is in part due to the simple main roof forms and the prevalence of dormers and bay windows. Roof forms playa significant role in the perception of a house from the street. The occupiable volume of the roof is made more functional by adding dormers to increase usable space and to bring in light to upstairs rooms. To the street, dormers add variety and texture to the roofline of the neighborhood, while making larger homes seem smaller and more human scaled. GUIDELINES · Single main roof. ETN houses generally have a clearly dominant "main" roof with some secondary dormers or interesting gables. · Balanced roof. Gable roofs which are generally equal on both sides and form a balanced facade composition are encouraged. · Dormers. Provide dormers and bay windows to break up the mass of larger homes and make them more compatible with smaller neighboring buildings. J -l_nJ:lrTJ^t(1u 2:12 4:12 6:12 8:12 10:12 12:12 14:12 Diagram illustrates various roof pitches as a visual reference . LANDSCAPING Lush green vegetation is a distinguishing characteristic of the ETN, and a wide variety of plants and trees are found throughout the neighborhood. Changes to the neighborhood should be seen as opportunities to enhance this "green" character. The landscaping of a house can help reinforce the relationship the house has with its neighbors and the larger street room. The shared space of the front yard can be enhanced with green plants and a variety of plants, shrubs and trees can be used to provide interest to a house front. GUIDELINES · Frame the entry. Use landscaping to frame the entry to a house in order to make it more visible to the street, and to enhance the other guidelines, especially porch entry and front yards. · Plant at the foundation. Plant at the base of the house in order to soften the transition between house and ground, and to hide a concrete foundation. · Plant large canopy trees. The tree canopy in the neighborhood is partially provided by street trees but also by major trees on lots. The tree canopy character of the streets also extends to back yards. · Backyards as Gardens. Backyards in the ETN are highly valued by the residents as open space and a place for gardens. Extra sensitivity to neighboring yards when contemplating any kind of built structure in the backyard is critical. Notice the trees in the front yards as well as the street landscape strip. This is a pattern found throughout the ETN and ensures a strong tree canopy. Those areas without this concentration of trees feel out of place within this neighborhood landscape. This photo was provided by a resident of the ETN to show a typical backyard. This backyard has a modest sized building sharing and helping to form the open space in the backyard. II RESOURCES Books and published materials Planning in the US.A, by J. Barry Cullingworth. This is a good general introduction to planning processes and issues. There is a short section on design review. Planning the new suburbia: flexibility by design, by Avi Friedman. The lnfill and Redevelopment Code Handbook. Produced by the Transportation Growth Management Program of Oregon. This is an overview of regulatory issues relevant to infill development. A Field Guide to American Houses, by Virginia and Lee McAlester. The following are examples of design guidelines used in other communities with similar issues to the ETN and Eugene's other older neighborhoods. Portland, Oregon: The 10 Essentials for North/Northeast Portland Housing: Guidelines for Renovations and New Construction, January 1991. This is one of the first documents in Oregon that began the move toward creating a design review process in Portland. Portland, Oregon: Building Blocks for Outer Southeast Neighborhoods: Neighborhood Design Guidelines for Residents and Developers, March 1996. Davis, California: The Traditional Davis Downtown and Residential Design Guideline. An excellent set of guidelines for a neighborhood experiencing similar issues as the ETN. Napa, California: Residential Design Guidelines, November 2004. Another set of guidelines focused on larger infill projects within a small town context. For more information, contact: Allen Lowe, Senior Planner City of Eugene Planning and Development Department Planning Division allen.d.lowe@ci.eugene.or.us 541/682-5377 Greg Brokaw, AlA Rowell Brokaw Architects, PC One East Broadway, Suite 300 Eugene, OR 97401 greg@rowellbrokaw.com 541/485-1003 . ATTACHMENTC Public Hearing Testimony C:\Documents and Settings\cepladl\My Documents\ALLEN\TGM\Chambers Reconsidered\Council Final Public Hearing AIS ll-14-05..doc LOWE Allen D From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Sharon Sherman [srs@uoregon.edu] Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:33 AM *Eugene Mayor and City Council LOWE Allen D Chambers Special Area Zone Dear Mayor Piercy and City Councilors: I urge you to support the changes proposed for the Chambers Special Area Zone. I understand that the Land Use Code and Zoning Map Amendments will be considered on November 14th and I am writing to tell you that I am affected by these changes and am in agreement with the amendments. We have lived here for 26 years and were part of the City's plan to implant the neighborhood with owner-occupied dwellings (indeed, my mortgage is with the City). I guess you could say we were the first example of infill but our house is a modest bungalow that was moved to make way for Monroe Park additions. We love the neighborhood and hope to prevent any more large scale multi-family units being built next to our yards (many at overwhelming sizes). Much of the "infill" has occurred in my block and developers are often doing "infilling" without any regard for the neighborhood's well-established character. It seems to me that the Chambers street corridor itself might be looked at for infill and commercial nodal development. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your consideration of CAFN's proposal. The standards set for discussion are the product of extensive public participation of which I have been a part. Please adopt them. I believe both the Planning Commission and the neighbors are in agreement on this issue. I thank you for letting the neighbors testify and for listening to our concerns. Please vote in favor of the amendments. Sincerely, Sharon R. Sherman and Steven Zibelman 1129 Taylor Court Eugene, OR 97402 (541) 343 -7168 1 Message Page 1 of 1 LOWE Allen D From: Sent: To: Cc: Steve Pringle [steve@pringle.hm] Wednesday, November 02,20053:29 PM *Eugene Mayor and City Council LOWE Allen D Subject: Chambers Node Revisited - please support the Chambers Area Special Zone Dear Mayor Piercy and City Councilors, I'm writing in regards to the public hearing scheduled for Monday, November 14 that will address the Land Use Code and Zoning Map Amendments. We've been living in the Chambers Area for over 4 years now. We love this neighborhood. Its got charming older homes, beautiful greenscape, including many large trees, and great neighbors. From our house we can walk downtown, to the library, and I walk or bicycle to work downtown every weekday. As you know, we are under the constant threat of negative infill which is seriously degrading the neighborhood. Fortunately the City has been conducting the Chambers Revisited project in an effort to put in place design standards that make sense, from the standpoint of preserving the neighborhood character and allowing for infill that contributes in a positive way. I've been involved with CAFHN in working with the City Planning Dept. in an effort to help define the design standards. I think the standards put forth by the City Planning Dept. are appropriate for our neighborhood, flexible, and in addition they meet all Metro and City density goals. Let me also say that I found the process of working with the City Planners in defining the standards to be a positive and encouraging experience. I strongly urge you to support the Chambers Area Special Zone and adopt the standards. Best Regards, Steve Pringle 1457 W. 10th Ave Eugene, OR 97402 11/7/2005 Page 1 of 1 LOWE Allen D From: Denice Gray [denicebruce@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 8:28 PM To: *Eugene Mayor and City Council Cc: LOWE Allen D Subject: Please Support Chambers Special Area Zone Dear Mayor and City Councilors, I am writing this email to urge you to adopt the Land Use Code and Zoning Map Amendments to be considered at the public hearing scheduled for Monday, November 14 at 7:30 p.m. I will be out of town that day and therefore cannot attend. There is nothing that puts pressure to expand the urban growth boundary faster than degraded neighborhoods in the core of a city. The Chambers area is one of many neighborhoods surrounding the downtown that is on a very slippery slope that could lead to such irreversible degradation. We have come to this point in large part because of very poorly designed and constructed infill over the past decades. I believe that adoption of the proposed design standards will give this neighborhood a fighting chance to become once again a beautiful traditional neighborhood in Eugene. Such a neighborhood can support appropriate infill in the future that will blend with the neighborhood, whereas promotion of willy-nilly infill in a fragile neighborhood promotes slums. While I think the neighborhood will blossom over the next decade if the design standards are adopted, my family and I were not willing to wait for that and have moved neighborhoods in Eugene in the past month. We lived at 1039 Taylor St. for more than three years. I still care very much for that neighborhood, as well as promotion of good policy to make Eugene a wonderful place to live. Thus, I strongly urge you to adopt the proposed amendments. Sincerely, Bruce Blonigen 2821 Spring Blvd Eugene OR, 97403 Formerly resided at 1039 Taylor St., Eugene, OR 97402 11/7/2005 Please support Chambers Special Area Zone Page 1 of2 LOWE Allen 0 From: NELSON Jeff (SUB) Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 9:03 AM To: *Eugene Mayor and City Council Cc: LOWE Allen D Subject: Please support Chambers Special Area Zone November 4, 2005 Dear Mayor and City Councilors, I am writing this e-mail to strongly urge you to support the Chambers Special Area Zone as supported by the Planning Commission, City staff and the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN). I do not live within the Chambers Special Area Zone "CSAZ", but am very interested in a successful outcome for the CSAZ. I have followed this issue, provided testimony to the record, and had contact with Allen Lowe and Paul Conte (of CAFHN). Success, to me, is a framework that meets the needs of neighborhoods by providing protection to existing neighborhoods and also meets the needs of the state and city policies regarding traffic mitigation and the provision of sufficient space within the city to meet future residential, commercial, and industrial growth. These can be competing interests and care must be taken to strike an appropriate balance - as has been developed in the Chambers Special Area Zone. Having worked on the Walnut Node (and current Walnut MUC process) and the zoning enhancements for the East Campus process, I appreciate that complex compromises that must be struck to arrive at a successful outcome. It is difficult to percieve how Mixed Use Centers (MUC) such as the CSAZ can be the ONLY tool used to meet future growth needs as there would be too much pressure on existing neighborhoods to achieve all growth and transportation goals only through zoning changes in the existing urban growth boundary. We may be able to do so in the future, but we are not there yet and we need to measure success not as a "one-size-fits-all" universal solution, but as a series of individual Mixed Use Center designations that we can build upon. The Chambers Special Area Zone allows for over a 50% increase in existing density while establishing land use patterns and zoning that will guide appropriate infill for the Chambers neighborhood. While markets will ultimately drive development, the city can (through zones such as the CSAZ) guide development appropriate to individual neighborhoods. Without increased density, the city will be under constant pressure to increase annexations, expand the UGB, and expand city services and infrastructure that are more efficiently provided to more compact neighborhoods. Without code and zoning protections, there is no mitigation to the neighborhood for future development. The Chambers Special Area Zone is a win-win solution that I am hopeful the City Council will adopt. After all, healthy neighborhoods make a healthy Eugene. Respectfully Submitted, 111712005 Please support Chambers Special Area Zone Page 2 of2 Jeff Nelson 2144 E. 15th Avenue Eugene, OR 97403 11/7/2005 Page 1 of 1 LOWE Allen D From: Emese Foss [emesefoss@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 04, 20052:13 PM To: *Eugene Mayor and City Council Cc: LOWE Allen D Subject: Please support Chambers Special Area Zone Dear Mayor and City Councilors, I am writing this e-mail to strongly urge you to support the Chamqers Special Area Zone as supported by the Planning Commission, City staff, and the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN). Although I live just outside the Chambers Area, I have been an eager participant during the early stages of this process and have stayed informed as the current process has developed into the above mentioned plan. This is a wonderful neighborhood and the current infill plan is slowly destroying the feel of our neighborhood. I think the Chambers Special Area Zone proposal addresses many of the residents' concerns while working with the City's requirements. It's a win-win for everyone. Thanks, Emese Foss 945 Madison Eugene, OR 97402 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. 11/7/2005 Page 1 of 1 LOWE Allen D From: Jennifer Barwood Dennifer@barwood.net] Sent: Saturday, November 05, 20058:17 AM To: *Eugene Mayor and City Council Cc: LOWE Allen D Subject: Please support Chambers Special Area Zone November 5, 2005 Dear Mayor and City Councilors, This letter is in regards to the Land Use Code and Zoning Map Amendments to be considered at the meeting scheduled for Monday, November 14 at 7:30 p.m. I live directly adjacent to the area being considered for the Chambers Special Area Zone. I am in support of this proposal. Many people were given ample opportunity to show their support for this concept and did so with much enthusiasm. Neighbors of any neighborhood, especially those close to a city core, reconize that inappropriate infill will seriously degrade the character of a neighborhood. We have a liveable, lively, walkable neighborhood with a nice of mix of homes and residents. The negative impacts of inappropriate infill will destabilize the neighborhood, making it harder to encourage people to live in this urban core neighborhood. The well thought-out standards are very flexible and allow over 50% increase in the neighborhood density. And the Planning Department staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the standards. I urge you to secure the livibiliy of this currently desirable neighborhood by voting yes on these amendments. Sincerely, Jennifer Barwood 1031 W. 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97402 11/712005 Page 1 of 1 LOWE Allen 0 From: Sent: To: CONTE Paul (SMTP) Saturday, November 05,200510:57 AM *Eugene Mayor and City Council Cc: LOWE Allen 0 Subject: Testimony in support of Chambers Special Area Zone Testimony in support of Chambers Special Area Zone November 4, 2005 Dear Mayor Piercy and Councilors, As we reach the end of our year-plus effort, I wanted to share some final thoughts about the personal contributions made by my neighbors. I hope you'll take a few moments to read the attached testimony. Unfortunately, I have to be in Chicago on November 14 to present a seminar, and I won't be able to attend the public hearing. I want to thank you again for the encouragement you've provided us throughout the year and for your careful consideration of the proposed Chambers Special Area Zone. Best regards, Paul Conte 1461 W. 10th Ave. Eugene, OR 97402 344-4546 Attached PDF document: Paul Conte testimony 11-04-05.pdf 11/7/2005 TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED CHAMBERS SPECIAL AREA ZoNE November 4, 2005 Dear Mayor Piercy and Councilors, As we reach the end of our year-plus effort, I wanted to share some final thoughts about the personal contributions made by my neighbors. Although the proposed standards we helped produce do an exemplary job of addressing difficult issues in a balanced and flexible way, the larger accomplishment was the enthusiastic and constructive participation of so many citizens in the research and discussions that led to the standards. As you know, Eugene has a well-deserved reputation for contentious and polarized political processes. Our public planning processes, as well, all too often seem intended to fit public involvement into frameworks that are preconceived by staff and do little to educate and engage citizens in a truly effective way. Not surprisingly then, many ordinary citizens don't believe that getting involved is worth the time or distress. And more than once, Council has had to deal with a hornet's nest that resulted from a failed planning process. The work done by CAFHN stands as an encouraging exception to these problems. Throughout the year, scores of citizens have been deeply involved in the "Chambers Revisited" project, and the proposed code has widespread public support from across the political spectrum. But CAFHN's success didn't happen overnight or without a lot of dedicated residents' hard work. Early in the process, a small group of residents spent hours on the phone and visiting door-to-door to overcome many other neighbors' suspicions that the "Chambers Revisited" project was just another "for show" exercise by the Planning Division with a predetermined outcome meant to further ramp-up density in an area already experiencing the damaging effects of inappropriate infill. I wish more City staff and the Council could have witnessed how dramatically many residents' attitudes towards the "Chambers Revisited" project and a potential Chambers MUC were changed by the outreach and education work done by this original small group of neighbors. As the CAFHN organization coalesced, it was inspiring to see how people took up the enormous task of inventorying every residential parcel in what came to be called the "East Traditional Neighborhood" (roughly, the S-CIR-2 subarea). This "grass roots" research produced the database that was essential for accurately assessing the need for, and impact of, various types of standards. Notably, residents didn't simply accept that there was no project money or staff time to conduct this inventory, but instead stepped into the breach and got the job done. Testimony in Support of the Proposed Chambers Special Area Zone November 4, 2005 Page Two Just as importantly, because many neighbors personally walked the streets and recorded their observations on infill impacts, we developed a much broader shared understanding of our neighborhood's essential character and the true nature of infill impacts. This type of direct education formed the foundation for many hours of productive discussion that led to the precise description of infill impacts and a broadly understood and supported proposal for infill standards that were presented in our "Neighbors' Report." Although at times our firm confidence in the standards that we neighbors recommended may have frustrated Planning staff and the project consultants, we're convinced that our determination to educate staff and the Planning Commission has ultimately resulted in proposed code that is, as Planning Commission Chairman Lawless said, "beautifully crafted. " The hours of hands-on work by residents who will be directly affected by the standards also resulted in very practical, thoroughly vetted code that has garnered widespread support outside the neighborhood, as well. Other Eugene residents and organizations recognize the proposed standards weren't just derived from abstract planning concepts- these standards reflect a pragmatic approach that will actually work to accomplish Eugene's complimentary goals of compact growth and healthy neighborhoods. During the public process, there were a number of times when some neighbors got disheartened, especially last April when Planning staff prematurely shut the door on further, genuine involvement by residents. This was a low point, when many informal citizen groups might have spun apart. But the people who volunteered for the CAFHN Steering Committee stepped up to the challenge and talked with neighbors to keep them informed and engaged despite the lack of progress. The result was a huge turnout at the Planning Commission public hearing that helped turn the tide and - with instrumental support from Chairman Lawless - get staff back working with residents for a successful culmination of the project. Throughout this process, even at the most frustrating times, residents have resisted the temptation to step out of the process and start hurling brickbats, as so often happens in Eugene. Gary Pape paid us all the best compliment by admiring or "dogged and diplomatic" approach. Those two qualities are also what I admire about my neighbors' participation in the Chambers Revisited project. Regardless of the outcome, I've been heartened by the experience of working with my neighbors and friends on this project, and I'd do it again in a heartbeat. Thank you for the encouragement you've provided us throughout the year and for your careful consideration of the proposed Chambers Special Area Zone. Paul Conte 1461 W. 10th Ave. Eugene, OR 97402 344-4546 LOWE Allen D From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: mbbonte50@juno.com Saturday, November 05, 2005 1 :30 PM *Eugene Mayor and City Council LOWE Allen D Please Support Chambers Special Area Zone Dear Mayor and City Councilors, I've been in the west side neighborhood for 17 years and have watched the neighborhood go through many changes. I know you know what has been happening to our neighborhood so I won't go there. Please support the proposed standards for the Chambers St neighborhood. We who live here love being here and want to watch our neighborhood grow, as we know it will, with grace and dignity. Something we can be proud of. Thank you for reading this. Mary Beth Bonte 1467 W. Broadway Eugene, Oregon 97402 1 Page 1 of 1 LOWE Allen D From: Art Clark [aclark@hershnerhunter.com] Sent: Saturday, November 05,20054:53 PM To: *Eugene Mayor and City Council Cc: LOWE Allen D Subject: Please support Chambers Special Area Zone Dear Mayor and City Councilors, I write in support of the CAFHN proposals for R-2 Overlay Development Standards. I am a native Eugenean and have practiced business law for the last 29 years. I live in southwest Eugene and am very interested in the development of the city as a whole and west Eugene in particular. I strongly support the CAFHN proposals for infill standards which will preserve rather than jeopardize the unique urban character of the East Traditional Neighborhood. This is an opportunity for Eugene's planning effort to "think outside the box" regarding compact urban growth. Limiting inconsistent and degrading infill in the core area of this neighborhood is a key to preserving the neighborhood's character. Preserving that character is essential to the continued desirability of the neighborhood as a place to live. Increased density can and should be accomplished by the development of medium to high-density residences on the edges of the neighborhood. Arthur J. Clark 2680 Terrace View Drive Eugene OR 97405 541-345-3485 111712005 Page 1 of2 LOWE Allen D From: Esther Foss [esther@pringle.hm] Sent: Sunday, November 06,200510:14 AM To: *Eugene Mayor and City Council Cc: LOWE Allen 0 Subject: Support the Chambers Special Area Zone November 6, 2005 City Councilors Mayor Kitty Piercy City of Eugene 777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon 97401 RE: Seeking "Chambers Special Area Zone" support Dear Mayor and City Councilors, It is with great anticipation that I look forward to November 14th and your vote on the amendments proposed for the Chambers Special Area Zone (CSAZ). For over a year, a multitude of citizens within and outside the CSAZ have investigated, defined, analyzed, discussed, and considered the current terms before you. The Planning Department and its Consultants and CAFHN have gone to great lengths to compose standards that are not only thorough and thoughtful, but ones that address the many issues that confront the planners and implementers of urban growth. The detractors are concerned that this might happen and that might happen and all sorts of negative things might happen if the amendments before you are adopted. It is merely speculation that adopting this proposal will 'set a precedent', 'bust the urban growth boundary' and 'reduce density'. The current growth guidelines focus squarely on the preservation of the line that delineates the growth boundary. Is it such a terrible precedent that defines the quality of growth within those boundaries? If such precedent takes root, we ought to consider what message our populace is trying to convey. Can the maximum densities that the city hopes to achieve in the CSAZ in the next decade save the urban growth boundary from expansion? Since there is no mechanism that requires all land owners in the area to meet those densities levels, it is wishful thinking that each and every one of us will develop our land to meet the density goals and "save" the urban growth boundary. As has been explained numerous times, the proposal before you meets every legal density benchmark AND does is with thoughtful parameters that keep our neighborhood livable. Rather than focusing on all the possible negative scenarios that COULD arise if the amendments are adopted, first try looking at all the negative realities that HA VE occurred because the only standard that defines how density goals can be achieved is an accounting number on a sheet of paper. There is far more to reaching density goals than meeting a density percentage and without some basic design standard, we will continue to see hugely inappropriate developments that merely balances the density 11/7/2005 Page 2 of2 books. Second, consider the positive scenarios that can be immediately achieved with the Chambers Special Area Zone amendments. For example, the amendment will permit growth with parameters that set expectations instead of "hoping" someone will do some "cool" development. Consider a standard that directly protects an individual property as well as collectively benefiting the neighborhood and surrounding areas. Consider the long term positive outcome of adopted an amendment that sets a benchmark from which to springboard further refinement of what it means to increase urban density. Is it better to cast a declining vote based on speculation or is it better to vote for an amendment because of the current negative realities it will control and the positive attributes it creates? Your vote in support of the Chambers Special Area Zone amendments is a rare opportunity to meet the regional wide density goals AND preserve established neighborhoods qualities that contribute to a healthful, diverse human habitat AND provide a much needed new paradigm for citizen participation in guiding the growth and protection of our urban and rural environments. Thank you, Esther Foss 1457 W. 10th Ave. Eugene, OR 97402 541.341.1399 11/712005 Page 1 of 1 LOWE Allen D From: Janice Gotchall Dgotchall@msn.com) Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 11 :27 AM To: *Eugene Mayor and City Council Cc: LOWE Allen D Subject: Chambers Special Zone-Please Support! November 5, 2005 Dear Mayor and Councilors, I'm writing in support of the Chambers Special Zone proposal and to ask for your support. I've lived in the Westside neighborhood for over 25 years and hope to continue living here a good while longer. I've witnessed first-hand the damage done to this neighborhood by inappropriate, out-of- scale, poorly designed and sited infill. The negative impacts of these developments have served to energize neighbors to seek an alternate approach to future development that allows for increases in density, but in a way that truly honors and maintains the character ofthe neighborhood. Although Eugene land use policies and goals include numerous references to maintaining the character and livability of neighborhoods, current land use and development regulations allow out-of-scale, out- of-character structures that destroy privacy, ignore neighborhood patterns, and threaten the continued livability of this area. There are those who say that the downtown neighborhoods have to "take their medicine" and accept high density, regardless ofthe character and impacts of what's built, in order to accommodate people who may move here in the future. I urge you to reject this notion. Destroying the fabric and character of close-in neighborhoods today will serve no positive purpose in addressing future growth issues - indeed the opposite is true. When the appeal of close-in neighborhoods is ruined, pressure to develop the suburbs will increase. The Chambers Special Area Zone is the culmination of many years of effort, spanning several City projects, by scores of households in this neighborhood, Planning Division staff, and multiple paid consultants. The proposal has been aired at many public hearings, has been endorsed by the Planning Commission, and is now ready to be adopted by the city council. Ijoin my neighbors in asking you to vote to create the Chambers Special Area Zone as an important step in honoring neighborhood character and creating a Chambers MUC. Thank you. Janice Gotchall 1461 W. 10th Ave. Eugene, OR 97402 11/7/2005 LOWE Allen D From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Susan Ewers [ewerss@hotmail.com] Sunday, November 06,200512:31 PM *Eugene Mayor and City Council LOWE Allen 0 Please support Chambers Special Area Zone November 6, 2005 Dear Mayor and City Councilors, I am writing in regard to the city infill standards. I am new to Eugene, only having lived here for 2 years. Over the years, I have lived in larger cities like Seattle, Portland, Chicago, Phnom Penh and smaller cities like Reno, Spokane, Armonk, Pullman, and Grand Rapids. I have also traveled quite a bit. There are qualities about these places, such as the neighborhoods characteristics, that influence my decision to visit them again. When looking to purchase my house last year, there were certain criteria that I gave to my realtor. Many of these criteria are defined in the CAFHN proposed standards. I agree with these standards because I believe that it is important to hold onto the green space in the inner cities, encourage walking and community, decrease the 'inappropriate infill' (a subjective term used to describe the buildings that are only attractive to the person holding the purse). It is important to think about the long term consequences and keep the city livable. I believe that others looking to move to this city are also looking for neighborhoods with these same qualities. I feel very lucky to have moved to this neighborhood, and to Eugene. Thank you for your time and attention to this important city growth issue. Susan Ewers 1493 W. 10th Ave Eugene, OR 97402 1 Page 1 of 1 LOWE Allen D From: John Russial [jrussial@uoregon.edu] Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 3:49 PM To: *Eugene Mayor and City Council Cc: LOWE Allen D Subject: Subject: Please support Chambers Special Area Zone Dear Mayor Piercy and City Councilors, I'm writing to ask your support for the Chambers Special Area Zone proposal. I've lived in the area under consideration for 14 years, and I'm a member of the neighborhood group CAFHN, which worked hard to help develop a proposal that is consistent with the character of this neighborhood while allowing for appropriate infill. I use the word "appropriate," because many of us got involved in this project to attempt to stem the spread of inappropriate, primarily out-of-scale, infill that has plagued our neighborhood for some time. The proposal before the council would create reasonable limits on the type of infill allowed, while still allowing for the increased density that infill makes possible. One of the criteria especially important to me, and I believe to others in the neighborhood, is the preservation of the green space in back and side yards that is characteristic of this mature neighborhood and that we value highly. We spend a lot of time living in and maintaining those areas. This is part of the character of the neighborhood and is, in my opinion, key to what makes this neighborhood a neighborhood and not just a collection of dwelling units. Again, I urge your support. John Russial 941 Almaden St. Eugene, OR 97402 11/7/2005 LOWE Allen 0 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Jonathan Plummer [jplummer@jeffnet.org] Sunday, November 06, 2005 5:55 PM *Eugene Mayor and City Council LOWE Allen 0 Please support Chambers Special Area Zone November 6, 2005 Dear Mayor and City Councilors, As longtime residents of Jefferson-Westside and the Chambers Area Node, we're writing to voice our support for the revised infill standards as proposed by the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods. We chose to live in this particular area for the quality of life--a nice, centrally- located neighborhood predominately comprised of single-family, owner-occupied homes within walking distance to downtown, shopping, and work. We've been dismayed, then, to see the sort of infill that the City has allowed to develop in the blocks around us. We support the City's goals of infill, reducing traffic, and limiting sprawl, but these ends can be achieved, we believe, without sacrificing the quality of life that originally attracted us to this neighborhood. Please work towards this by supporting the revised infill standards. Jonathan Plummer Jean E. Jancaitis 933 Almaden St. Eugene, OR 97402 1 Please support Chambers Special Area Zone Page 1 of 1 LOWE Allen D From: Dale Mostkoff [dalmos@teleport.com] Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 6:09 PM To: *Eugene Mayor and City Council Cc: LOWE Allen D Subject: Please support Chambers Special Area Zone Dear Mayor and City Councilors, As a resident/homeowner on Almaden St. I have watched closely and even participated in the research and development of plans and proponents set forth by CAFHN, et al for the infill standards in the Chambers nodal area. For various reasons our neighborhood risks development in directions that would not be fitting for one of Eugene's older, classic residential sections. There is a "feel", a quality, present here that can only be preserved by maintaining the character and style of the current homes here. Not only would the development of inexpensive multiunit housing not alleviate the sprawl concerns for the rest of the city but it would completely change and destroy the quiet community spirit present here and the reason why I and so many of my neighbors have chosen to buy and live in this wonderful neighborhood. I urge you to consider and adapt the standards set forth by CAFHN and others to keep our neighborhood livable. Thank you, Dale Mostkoff 867 Almaden St. Eugene, OR 97402 11/712005 Page 1 of 1 LOWE Allen D From: Jana Logan [2janal@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 6:32 PM To: CC@cLeugene.or.us Cc: LOWE Allen 0 Subject: In support of Chambers Area Special Dear Mayor and City Councilors I hope you will seriously consider the Proposal that is before you. The citizens of the Chambers area take great pride in their old established neighborhood and have gone to a great deal of work to make you aware of what is happening in their neighborhood with a possible solution. Please listen to these thoughtful people. Jana L. Logan 198 Brae Burn Dr. Eugene, OR 97405 11/712005 Page 1 of 1 LOWE Allen D From: Shannon Micheel [smicheel@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 9:02 PM To: *Eugene Mayor and City Council Cc: LOWE Allen D Subject: Support for Chambers Special Area Zone November 6, 2005 Dear Mayor and City Councilors, I am writing in support of the amendments CA 04-5 in order to preserve the neighborhood integrity of this community. The amendments demonstrate smart development by encouraging utilization of space efficiently. It also protects the existing dwellings by providing a tool for maximizing density in such a way as to preserve property value and the unique character of the area. I urge you to support the amendments as well. Sincerely, Shannon R. Micheel 952 Polk Street Eugene, OR 97402 111712005 Page 1 of 1 LOWE Allen D From: Michael Kresko [mjkresko@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 06,20059:14 PM To: *Eugene Mayor and City Council Cc: LOWE Allen 0 November 6, 2005 Dear Mayor and City Councilors, I am writing in support of the amendments CA 04-5. The amendments would allow maximizing population density in a way that protects the existing community and the character so often lost in new development. I urge you to support the amendments for this West Eugene community and for the benefit of the entire city as well. Sincerely, Michael J. Kresko 952 Polk Street Eugene, OR 97402 11/7/2005 LOWE Allen D From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: reirvine@comcast.net Monday, November 07,20059:21 AM *Eugene Mayor and City Council LOWE Allen D Please support Chambers Special Area Zone November 7, 2005 Dear Mayor and City Councilors, I'm writing to let you know I support the proposed Chambers Special Area Zone. I think this proposal will guide Eugene in the right direction in relation to protecting close-in residential neighborhoods and allowing for increased density. I'm grateful to the people who have put their time and skillful thinking into showing us a way to meet the City's goals for compact growth while allowing our neighborhoods to keep their character and stability. I hope to see your vote for the Chambers Special Area Zone. Thank you, Rhea Irvine 1852 Charnelton Street Eugene, OR 97401 1 LOWE Allen D From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Scarafina 1 @aol.com Monday, November 07,200510:59 AM *Eugene Mayor and City Council LOWE Allen D; Scarafina1@aol.com Testimony in Support of Chambers Special Area Zone Monday, Nov. 7, 2005 To: Mayor and CC@ci.eugene.or.us From: Carol DeFazio scarafina1@aol.com Subject: Testimony in Support of Chambers Special Area Zone Cc: Allen.D.Lowe@ci.eugene.or.us Testimony in Support of Chambers Special Area Zone November 5, 2005 Dear Mayor Piercy and Councilors: Until the current Chambers MUC study, I had not actively participated in a public process. When the Chambers Node project began in Autumn of 2004, I first thought UThey've already got it figured out. The public process is just a formality." However, early conversations with neighbors and my attendance at the first public meetings of the CNR planted in my mind the possibility that this time it could be different. It appeared that the city, the staff, and the consultants truly wanted our participation to deal with a challenging problem. A substantial group of committed neighbors were ready and willing to take it on. Having lived in Eugene since 1965 (in my current home since 1976), I had firsthand experience of our inner city neighborhood. I was acutely aware of its fragility, having witnessed over the years the profound negative impact of each thoughtlessly designed uinfill" project that came into the area. The prospect of more to come distressed me. I felt it was important to the city to have healthy, stable neighborhoods surrounding the downtown core. I also felt it was vital to the cultural life of the city to maintain our diverse older neighborhoods. The first rule of progress, someone has said, is to not lose what we already have. It seemed to me that we were letting a treasure slip away. Was anyone paying attention to the on-the-ground reality of our neighborhood? Could we neighbors work together to halt its inevitable deterioration and decline? In the Chambers Reconsidered project, I saw an opportunity to address these concerns. Throughout this process, as a member of CAFHN's Steering Committee, my goal has been to encourage all of us---neighbors, consultants, staff, Planning commission and Council---to look beyond the false perception that we must sacrifice neighborhoods or have urban sprawl. What we really need are actions that support healthy neighborhoods so as to encourage compact growth. 1 What you have before you is the result of over a year's collaborative effort by a large, dedicated group of residents: a reasonable, well-balanced solution that keeps this neigborhood livable AND meets every legal density standard. Thank you for your attention and continued interest in this work. I hope you'll accept this opportunity to foster a sound and livable urban core by supporting the creation of the Chambers Special Area Zone. Carol DeFazio 1437 W. lOth Ave. Eugene, OR 97402 345-0297 2 LOWE Allen D From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Shannon Sardell [ssardell@uoregon.edu] Monday, November 07,200511 :02 AM *Eugene Mayor and City Council LOWE Allen D Chambers Special Area Zone November 7, 2005 Dear Mayor and City Councilors, My husband and I rent a modest house in the Chambers Nodal Development area. We enjoy the area for its pedestrian friendly streets, diverse neighbors, and close proximity to many of Eugene's amenities. Though we cannot afford to purchase a house in this neighborhood presently, we do not think that arguing for an increase in density to full R-2 standards in this area would make housing more affordable nor preserve the diverse nature of this area of Eugene. With my training in architecture, historic architecture, and planning; as well as my observations and involvement in the areas neighborhood group; it is my full belief that the majority of residents in this neighborhood understand the need for infill and density in the urban cores in order to protect the rural areas around the city. They have taken a lot of time and effort to understand the building codes, think about the codes implications, and propose SENSIBLE solutions for the area they live in and consider home. The residents of the Chambers area have proposed infill standards that can be understood not only by the developers and construction companies, but also by the common person not trained in the construction industry. These standards are flexible and reduce the negative impacts of infill while still allowing for an increase in the density in this area by over 50%. Both the Planning Department staff and the Planning Commission have recommended the approval of these standards. This neighborhood community has worked hard to present and preserve the most important parts of their living environment while still understanding the need to grow. It it both the hope of my husband and I that we can own a home in this area in the years to come. I hope the City Council will support the proposed standards so that we can continue enjoying this unique and very Eugene-like neighborhood. Thank you, Shannon Bell 910 Taylor Street Eugene, Or 97402 1 October 31 ~ 2005 City Councilors Mayor Kitty Piercy City of Eugene 777 Pearl Street Eu~ene, Oregon 97401 To Mayor Piercy and Councilors: This letter concerns the Land Use Code and Zoning Map Amendments to be considered at the publie hearing seheduled for Monday, November 14 at 7:30 p.m.l regret that a prior cOffuniweflt prevents me from offeri-.n8 my testimony in person. In 1999, I sold my house in South Eugene and moved to my current residence at 836 Taylor Street. I was drawn by the beauty of the neighborhood, with its stately trees and mix of homes and residents. I soon discovered that this is a very stable neighborhood. Many of my neighbors have lived here since the 1950s. and some even go back to the 1940s. At the same time it's a very open and welcoming neighborhood- multigenerational and diverse. This is a very convenient location. My husband and I bike and walk almost everywhere. When our car lease expired, we decided not to buy a new car. Instead~ we share a car with a neighbor. This sensible and economical arrangement has worked out satisfactorily for both parties for more than two years. In other words-my experience represents exaetly what is envisioned for Eugene: a liveable. walkable downtown neighborhood. I believe that all of this is compatible with increased density. The plan that neighborhood residents have carefully crafted. in tandem with membe~ of the <;ity'$ pl~ng de~ent~ pr~$erve$ the beauty and liveability of West Eugene while inviting significantly more people to participate as homeowners and renters. I urge you to vote yes on these amendments. Sincerely, ~(] AliceParman ~ I~?F('E'- 1.3!' '-",,: "./VEn I,,) ( \' .' ,., lut ..' lVAGfF? !~tJl! . I I " " J, /Ilnt. 836 Taylor Street Eugene~ Oregon 97405 342-3464 Page 1 of2 LOWE Allen D From: Joshua [joshua_daniels@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 07,200512:34 PM To: *Eugene Mayor and City Council; LOWE Allen D Subject: in regards to Chambers Special Area Zone (please ensure copies reach City Council members - thanks!) Nov. 3,2005 Dear Mayor and City Councilors, I am writing in support of amendments to the Land Use Code and Zoning Map Amendments under consideration by the City Council under the "Chambers Revisited project." These amendments will be the subject of an upcoming public hearing on November 14. While I am unable to attend this hearing, I would like to express my support for the amendments and briefly provide a viewpoint on this crucially important issue of balancing livability with development. I am a former resident of the Westside neighborhood (and former member of the Jefferson-Westside Executive Board), and I have observed first hand the denigration brought about by poorly conceived infill within this showcase Eugene neighborhood. There is little doubt that the lack of appropriate design standards has allowed, if not enabled or even encouraged, ongoing, incremental destruction to this fine neighborhood. The result of this has been a significant loss to the neighborhood as a whole. The evidence of this destruction is abundant and unambiguous (and very well documented by the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods -- the citizen group that has brought this issue to the attention of the City), and I encourage the the City Council and Mayor to walk this neighborhood to see it first hand. This "blight," as some are calling it is largely the result of economic interests taking precedence over the diverse and, for the most part, protective interests of the neighborhood's most valuable stakeholders: its long term home- owner residents and renters who prize livability and quality-of-life characteristics over narrow economic utility. I would like to emphasize that poorly implemented infill projects impose long term indirect costs to these stakeholders, many of whom simply want to live in the neighborhood and participate in the quality of life and sense of community it affords. It is important to recognize that those most like to reap immediate and direct economic benefit from development are those who view the neighborhood more from an economic utility-- return on investment -- perspective than simply as a place to live. Clearly, there are cases in which the two overlap, and ideally investors and residents would value both perspectives, and want to protect the greatest number of interests -- to the extent that they achieve ends: sustaining the livability of the neighborhood. This neighborhood is attractive to developers for the same reason it attracts resident, and the quality of the neighborhood rests on both the care and interest of residents and the building of homes and infrastructure. Moreover, the specific qualities of the Chambers / Westside area have accrued over time, in large part through the efforts of the many residents who have taken a long term interest in their own property, and who, in many cases, have improved it for reasons other than short term economic gain. It is ironic, therefore, as well as sad, that the kind of development the City has permitted in fact undermined those very same qualities that have made the neighborhood attractive--and drew development and investment in the first place. It is the long-term view of home-owner residents, reflected in the investment in property maintenance, improvement, and participation in community and civic life that defines the quality of this neighborhood -- not the supposed benefits brought by development. Why? Because home-owner residents have, to a much greater degree, an understanding of livability over the long term, and less interest in short term economic utility. Of course, as home-owners we care about our property values, but that is not the primary reason for choosing to reside in a given neighborhood. Given this, Why should the residents of this neighborhood have its character degraded or destroyed by those 11/712005 Page 2 of2 with a primarily economic view of the its value? When infill degrades a neighborhood, the home-owner residents are the real losers and suffer the long-term consequences of the developer's short term profits. In short, these home-owners subsidize the profitability of haphazard development, and pay the indirect costs of inappropriate infill. Infill driven by the developer's interests alone lowers the overall appeal and attractiveness of the area to future residents --- as well as would-be investors. This is neither equitable nor is it in the best economic interests of the community as a whole. Yet, until the residents of the Chambers I Westside neighborhood took the initiative to bring this concern to the attention of the City, there was absolultely no effort to balance livability with development. In fact, the most recent revision to the zoning laws enshrines the infill mandate, without any recognition of the distinctive nature of a given neighborhood. The current zoning regulations as they apply to infill offer a poor long-term stratagem for growth: inappropriate infill ultimately degrades the economic value of a neighborhood, reducing property values for present and future home-owners, discourages investors (even those whose interests and views are consonant with those of the home-owner resident), and otherwise creates economic instability across the board. Clearly, we all have a stake in stopping this cycle of decline, and the City has a special role to play in creating the ground rules, expressed through the zoning rules and their enforcement, that will encourage and guide appropriate forms of development--and when necessary restrict those undermine the broader stakeholder interests and the greater good. The proposed design standards of the Chambers Revisited project reflect an enormous and diligent effort on the part of neighborhood residents (all of whom are volunteers, and taking time away from busy lives to do this important work), the Planning Department Staff, and the Planning Commission. The standards have developed from a legitimate process and reflect consensus among those with both self- and community- interest and a balance of economic and livability values. Both the Planning Department and Planning Commission have given the standards their support. Moreover, these standards, if enacted into rules, would provide the neighborhood residents the tools to address poorly conceived and inappropriate infill projects, before they take root. They also allow the City to move forward in a consistent manner with densification -- by a factor of 50% or greater. As you contemplate further densification around the core of downtown and look for ways to be the fair and objective power brokers we expect from our local representatives, I urge you to recognize the competing interests in this debate and the immensely important effects that appropriate infill standards can have in balancing livability with densification. The Chambers Revisited project aligns the goals of the city and those of the neighborhood residents and the community at large, including developers. It is now up to the City Council to make a responsible and informed decision. I strongly urge that you give this your full and enthusiastic support. Yours, Joshua Daniels 2508 Park Forest Dr. Eugene, OR 97405 541-687 -5969 joshua daniels@comcast.net 111712005