Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Anything that was in attachment F, I think that was noted as an edit or something kind of a change you'd want to make.

So it includes all of your straw poll recommendations from the last meeting plus the cleanup items that staff has identified that are less substantive.

That's an H. Yeah, that's an H.

and what we expect to be the recommended changes from this evening.

That was going to be the other part of my question, I guess. So whatever it is we come up with tonight for suggestions, you're kind of anticipating that. But if we come up, I'm kind of curious how it's all going to get folded. If we want to make a recommendation and send it on to the council, how we would be able to incorporate anything we come up with tonight.

Right. We've included staff's recommendations on the two pieces tonight, on the middle housing pieces and the R1 height issue. So we've included staff recommendation in attachment H. What we're suggesting, but you can alter it, is that you are directing, you're recommending adopting package one with this list of changes for staff to make before it goes to city council. So if you choose to do something different than staff's recommendation, you simply change, you change the wording in attachment H and the motion can.

And this is probably obvious, but then given all of that, you'll wrap all that up together and what will end up going to council and going for their public hearing. would be a revised document.

Exactly.

Okay.

You're directing us to revise the documents as you wish to go to council with the next version.

Thanks.

Lauren, you want to add anything to that?

Sure. Yes. So the staff's proposal, just to be clear, is that Planning Commission directs staff to make changes, but you wouldn't see those, if you accept staff's proposal, you wouldn't see those changes before it goes to Council. We've done that both ways in the past. In the interest of time, that's why staff is recommending just the direction to make the changes. But the Planning Commission could decide that you want to actually see the language before it goes to Council, in which case staff would bring it back at a later meeting. That might be a little hard to schedule, but possible.

And I think I said that we're going to stop. And we're going to run the meeting. We're proposing running the meeting the same way as last time. Or we'll stop and have a discussion after each key piece of code amendments we discuss. OK. Are folks ready for me to hand it over to Heather? All right.

Good evening, commissioners. So moving into discussion on the proposed middle housing code amendments, which can be found in attachment B, which is beginning on page 43 of your packet. As Rebecca mentioned, this is a continuation from the July 14th Planning Commission deliberations to discuss the remaining topics on middle housing code amendments with specific emphasis on the proposed bonus unit framework, townhouses, and then we wanted to leave opportunity for any of the middle housing code amendments that we didn't get to last time or tonight, if there's any of those that the commission want to discuss. So moving into our first topic area bonus units, this framework is required to implement the provisions of House Bill 2138, which is required to be adopted by the end of this year. The proposed framework provides new incentives for middle housing developments that choose to provide at least one fully ADA compliant accessible unit, or at least one home ownership unit that is affordable to households earning less than 120% of the area median income. And that's about $110,000 for a household of four. These affordable units are called, we're calling them income qualified middle housing dwellings in the code. So that's the term we're using for that. The framework also includes relief from certain development standards to accommodate the development of these bonus units. Public testimony was received suggesting changes to the proposed bonus unit framework. We considered these suggestions and as discussed on the next slide, staff is not recommending updates to the proposed framework at this time, but rather to consider these ideas in the near future. So the bonus unit framework as proposed aligns with the minimum requirements in House Bill 2138. So to illustrate how this new framework will work, we'll walk through the development standards relief table for triplexes and fourplexes as an example. So that's what's on this slide. So the relevant standard in the framework on this table is the first column. And so for instance, you've got number of units, maximum building height, et cetera. The base allowed column is what is allowed without the bonus framework. So this is just the base allowance, even if we weren't adopting a bonus unit framework. The bonus column is the additional bonus amount for that particular standard. And then the last column is putting those all together in one total. So the base allowance plus the bonus allowance. So starting with what projects qualify for bonus units, as I mentioned, qualifying projects provide at least one fully ADA accessible unit or one affordable home ownership unit. And that's in the second row of the table. That is the same for all the middle housing types of development. Qualifying developments can then add one or two additional bonus units and that depends on the housing type of the development. So in this case in the table you can see for the number of units, for triplex units the base allowance is three. They can add one unit and that totals four triplex units. For fourplex units, they can add two, and that totals six fourplex units. It's worth kind of saying that slowly. Given that, but that's straight from the House bill. The state law then requires cities to provide quote unquote commensurate increases to the developable area, floor area, height or density to allow for the development of the bonus units. The proposed framework generally aligns with the state's model housing code for large cities on how to do this as far as the base minimums go. Given that we didn't have any other guiding information and the model code shows at least what the state is thinking would be required to meet the requirements of the House bill. The proposed development area increases include allow an additional 10 feet in height, which is the equivalent to one story. Reduce the front yard setback to match the interior yard setback. So going from 10 feet to five feet. and a 10% increase in the allowable lot coverage. The House bill mentions floor area. We don't use that. We use building lot coverage in our code, so that's what we applied the standard to. Specific to townhouses, we would also allow two additional units to the maximum number of units that can be attached in a townhouse structure. And specific to cottage clusters, we propose an increase in the allowable cottage size and a reduction to the minimum required courtyard area. So all of these are either increasing a standard or reducing the standard to create more developable area to accommodate the bonus units.

Heather, is it possible to increase the size of your screen so it shows up bigger there?

Let me see.

I don't know. Make it full screen if possible. Ah, perfect. Thank you.

Great. Thanks, Crystal.

I'm going to have a little bit of some stuff in the corner. Okay.

Okay. So one thing I wanna point out here is that this table has been updated to reflect the current maximum R1 zone building height of 30 feet, assuming that the maximum building height proposal to increase from 30 to 35 feet is removed from adoption package one. So that's why you're seeing 30 feet there. In the proposed code amendments, it shows the base allowance as 35. So testimony was received that the city should add some of the additional provisions from the model housing code, including allow projects with adaptable units. And so that means units that are not fully ADA accessible but could be modified in the future for accessibility. and allow affordable rental housing units to qualify as projects that would be able to get the bonus units. The comments also suggest scaling the incentives based on the depth and duration of the affordability commitment such as allowing more incentives or development relief development standards relief if the affordability is locked in for the unit for 30 years versus 10 years, so a longer commitment. And then potentially stacking the allowable bonuses if a project provides both an accessible and an affordable home ownership unit. Again, we looked at all of these things because they are in the model housing code, but as discussed further in your July 14th deliberations memo, So that was the staff response memo. Staff considered these things, but due to their complexity that they would add to the code and the short timeframe we're working with, staff did not include them at this time in the framework proposal, but instead anticipate revisiting the bonus unit framework shortly in response to the Eugene specific housing needs that will be identified in the contextualized housing need and the Oregon housing needs analysis work that is currently underway and that we'll be bringing back to you next year. So I want to pause here for questions on the bonus unit framework or staff's recommendation on this and I'll see if I can answer those questions.

Commissioner Beeson?

One of the things you just said, you're going to be looking at this in more detail and come back shortly? Mm-hmm. Does that mean in the next? Approval package or the one in the spring? What does that mean?

Sure. Yeah, we are working on the contextualized housing needs. So it's taking that 26,000 units that we're planning for for the next 20 years and putting them in the Eugene context. That's why it's called the contextualized housing need of what are the housing types, the different housing types of the different characteristics and affordability and locations of, and Leah's smiling because she can articulate. She is our contextualized housing need lady, but she'll jump in for me if I'm, uh screwing anything up but um essentially more detail like really providing more localized detail what around our housing need and we anticipate that we are going to have to have additional strategies that will provide incentives based on different housing types different characteristics of housing so for instance in this case Right now, the bonus unit framework is addressing tenure because it's providing an incentive for affordable home ownership of a specific affordability level, and then it's providing an incentive for fully accessible units. To the point of the public testimony we received, we could expand that, but staff is recommending that we look at this, the bonus framework amongst other strategies to address particular needs, and that will be coming before you at the end of this year and then beginning of next year, the whole housing need and what it is and how we're going to address it.

That's my question. You're doing that work and we'd be seeing that around the end of the year or early next year?

Yeah, I think so. And you jump in. Yeah, I mean, event two eventually adopt everything by the end of 2027. So that's the key. That's good.

I don't need to belabor it. I was just, I know we have, we have, this is package one.

Yeah.

We've talked about package two being in the fall. I'm hearing tonight that we have package three that's coming in the spring. Maybe some more packages someday.

Package three is the big package. That will be adopting our housing need, our land supply studies, and additional strategies to address those needs.

Okay. I'm good. Thanks.

Commissioner Clevenger.

Multiple times these two slides mention affordable home ownership. So just to make sure I understand this, if a cottage cluster were all rentals and they were not accessible, but they were affordable, they would not qualify for this. It has to be affordable to purchase.

Yep. And that was the specific intent of the house bill was around providing a home ownership opportunity. Yep.

Other questions? Are you wanting a straw poll?

Not necessary. We can do a straw poll. Or we can move on and do it after townhouses. I think it's fine to move on. Okay. Okay, so moving on, switching to townhouse requirements. So most of the proposed changes for townhouses are to provide flexibility, clarity, and some of them are to align with the model code, the model housing, the state's model housing code. These include, you probably saw, adding clarifying definitions for townhouse development sites, townhouse lots, Townhouse structures, which are when you have an individual, you're attaching two or more units, that's a townhouse structure compared to just the townhouse unit. Eliminating the requirement for one architectural feature like a dormer, a balcony, or a bay window per unit, and instead focusing on entry orientation and window coverage like the other middle housing types

are focused on.

The proposal also adds clarity and some restructuring throughout the townhouse section, particularly around access, access and parking and driveways, all of that stuff. This is because townhouses are a little different than the other middle housing types. They are required to be on their own lot, but there are different design requirements depending on if the individual townhouse lot has frontage on the street or if it doesn't. That can make some of the section a little bit more complicated. Most of the restructuring and rewording is intended to differentiate these standards and add clarity about that differentiating them. So it looks like a lot of changes but most of them are not actually too substantive. So as you recall, we received public testimony on the proposed townhouse code amendments, including a marked up version of the proposed amendments and some site plan examples, which was really helpful. So in response to that, we developed updates to the proposed code amendments regarding specifically townhouse parking and townhouse access connections and met with the individual to confirm that these updates would resolve the specific concerns that they shared with us. And so as a result of those conversations, staff is recommending the following updates to the townhouse parking and access connections. Okay, so we're going to use this graphic throughout. It's based on public testimony we received and it's to help illustrate where on the development site these updates are related to. So I'm just going to orient you to this graphic a little bit. So just starting at the top, the parent lot boundary is outlined in heavy black line. That is also defined in our new definition of townhouse development site. So that's the larger site. And then the individual townhouse lots are delineated with the dashed line or dotted line. The townhouse structure, as again, a new definition, as I mentioned earlier, it's when two or more townhouse units are attached to each other. So that whole thing is the structure with eight units in it. Individual driveways to access garages are pointed out there. The garages in this example have a little G on them. And then you can see that in this example there's a shared driveway and access easement connection that both the structures and the overall development site are using one shared access. Okay, so. First example, this first standard is an update regarding the area labeled A on this graphic and is for lots oriented like these two that are circled in blue in the front. So they have frontage on the street compared to the other individual townhouse lots, which don't. This update clarifies that the maximum 12 foot width of vehicle parking and maneuvering area is allowed for each townhouse lot and it's not one maximum width for each structure. So it's allowing it for each townhouse lot. This update is necessary to allow enough room for individual driveways to each townhouse lot, specifically in the front area there, the front two lots there. The next item labeled as B on the graphic is regarding when two or more townhouse structures are using a shared access connection or shared driveway. Again, this example, the update would allow more flexibility for where parking can occur on the individual townhouse lots, and that is shown as labeled as the B option. on that right townhouse lot and with the exception that no parking is allowed between the townhouse unit and this street. That's shown as labeled as B crossed out. Again, that's just clarifying it. Right now, the code says you have to have parking accessing from the rear of the facade of the unit, but that can be challenging and maybe unnecessary to actually identify where that is. The point is we just don't want to allow parking between the townhouse and the streets. So we've simplified that language. And then the third update is labeled C on the graphic. This clarifies that access that is shared between two or more townhouse structures is allowed. You can do that. So sharing an access rather than requiring each structure to have its own access should minimize the amount of impervious surface and vehicle use area that's needed for the development site. So, it's more efficient use of land, less impervious surface. So, any questions about the recommended townhouse updates or about any other of the middle housing code changes that we didn't discuss tonight or at your July 14th work session?

Just real quick, the shared 12-foot space, that is six foot on either side or 12 foot on either side?

For each lot. For each lot?

So if you're going backward, I think it's two more slides.

Our graphic kind of relies on confusing.

So is that 12 feet for both shared access driveway points are a total of 24 feet, or are we talking about six feet on either side for a total of 12?

It would be 12 feet on either side, but actually this graphic kind of shows the driveway area as being much wider than 12 feet, so let's pretend that actually the 12 feet starts from...

I'm definitely looking for scale and impressive. We got it all in one slide, so that's totally fine. So it's 24 feet, because 12 feet's a pretty narrow space between all that. Okay, that's it. Thank you.

Yeah, and that's why we wanted to clarify that it was 12 feet per lot and not per structure, because that would be pretty narrow for that entire structure.

I'm green now. I think that Commissioner Isakson sort of touched on my question. I just was more a question about has this actually been modeled on an actual real Not just in theory, because I think sometimes it looks a certain way, but then in practice and the way that structures are, I just wanted to ensure. For example, in my neighborhood, the distance between someone's garage door and the sidewalk isn't actually long enough for a lot of trucks. People are literally parked, if they're not in their driveway, or in their garage, they are blocking the sidewalk. And so I just kind of was looking at this and trying to figure out, is there something we're missing as far as like pedestrian access or anything like that? But yeah, that was my question.

Yeah, so yes and no, as far as has this been modeled. We haven't seen a lot of townhouse projects come in. We've only had one middle housing land division for a townhouse project, so for a townhouse development site. And that actually, we did not review the unit design through that process. So that was just for the middle housing land division, which is required before the units can be built. We have had a couple project consultations for townhouse projects. And in those cases, we walked through our current standards and how they would apply. And that is kind of how we identified some of the changes that we wanted to make. So this is modeled based on feedback from the applicant for those project consultations and from just the public in general and whether the code would work or not work. A lot of it is based on questions we've gotten about it. And then the other thing I wanted to mention was all the other development standards that apply in say the R1 zone would still apply. Okay, so like the 18 foot front yard setback for garages and carports would still apply? It would just be in addition to these standards.

Thank you.

Did you have a question? Commissioner Young? Thank you. I have a quick question. So does it require that it's a through share access? What's happening on the other end of the property? Does it require that you can drive through and exit the other way? Because if you live at the end of that property, it's tricky. So I just wonder if it's through and through traffic or it just ends right there?

That's a great point and another limitation of this graphic. So if you could imagine that the driveway actually ended where those individual driveways split off at the end, that's kind of more of what we'd see normally, I think. Technically, it might be possible for another site to use that driveway for access with an easement, especially if they were developed by the same person or something. But in this case, that's more just a mistake in the graphic. And that's not required now.

Just one thing to add, these plans will still be reviewed by the fire marshal, so it will have to comply with any fire standards as well, so that will kind of control what the designs look like too to make sure it complies with those standards.

Other questions?

Okay. Do we want to take a straw poll, um, of, um, does the planning commission want to move forward with the proposed middle housing code amendments as amended on attachment H? Oh, I mean, that's the, these amendments essentially. I thought you wanted a straw poll about this. Yes. I mean, these are part of attachment age. Sorry, I shouldn't have referred to that. Yes, the townhouse and the bonus units and the middle housing code in general. Okay.

Were we not going to do a separate straw poll about amendments Attachment H. Yes. Yes. So, Commissioner Bailey, what... So, we want a straw poll for townhouses and bonus units if we're accepting the changes as presented.

Yep. So, the Middle Housing Code amendments, including some of the amendments that we discussed at the last meeting, with the changes that Heather just walked through, both to the townhouse standards, and I guess we're not recommending any changes for the bonus units.

All right. Agreed? All agreed?

I agree. I'm still a little confused. Are we voting on whether we accept the changes that are in Exhibit H that keeps being referred to? No. We're talking about the things we just talked about. Correct. That's all we're talking about at this point. Thank you.

I was confused also, as you were saying.

Are we voting on in H1 through A? No.

Okay. The changes that Heather just walked through are some of the changes in attachment H, but all we're asking for right now is a straw poll on the changes that Heather just walked through.

Relate to mental housing.

And then eventually we will get to the final motion that incorporates everything and all of attachment H, but that is not now.

So are we, shall we ask again? All in favor? Thank you, unanimous.

okay and so uh just to didn't sound like there were any other questions on any middle housing code amendments that we didn't get to so we'll move on to um our one building height So just as a refresher, that proposal is to increase the building height in the R1 zone. The current proposal is to increase the maximum building height from 30 feet to 35 feet, which under the current code, which allows for an additional seven feet with a 612 pitched roof would result in a maximum building height of 42 feet. with the pitched roof. Most of the testimony received related to adoption package number one has been directed at the proposed height increase and I would say that's been both against and in support of the proposal. The proposal came from attempting to align with the state's recently adopted model housing code which uses 35 feet for all of their housing types. As summarized in attachment G of your packet, staff have continued to research the R1 zone building height issues and looking for if there are other options that would provide both flexibility, address some of the issues that have been raised, and also address the state's mandatory height adjustments required through Senate Bill 1537. and House Bill 2138 regarding bonus units, which we just talked about. But essentially, we need more time to test and get feedback on height options in a variety of real-life development scenarios, such as what different height options would, how they would impact development on small lots, on sloped lots, and potentially looking at different housing types. In addition, there are recently published draft Oregon administrative rules to implement House Bill 2258, which includes the Oregon Homes Program. So at a high level, the draft rules require cities to allow development of housing on smaller lots if they meet a limited number of standards that are specified in the draft rules, regardless of the property's zoning regulations. It is currently unclear what impact these new rules would have on local height restrictions. So given this, staff recommends that the proposed R1 building height code amendment be removed from adoption package one and postponed to adoption package three most likely, given the complexity of the issues and the impounding, impounding, impending, rulemaking that hopefully would be able to be resolved by the time we come back and look at this. So pause here for questions about this recommendation.

Commissioner Beeson.

Okay. Well, I try to be brief respecting everyone's time. I, I'm, When I got the backgrounder last week and I did my usual quick read through, this jumped out at me. This feels really sudden to me. We've been working on this for a couple of years. And I know that we've been moving towards making a recommendation to the community that we go to 35 feet more recently than two years, but we've been talking about it quite a bit. My sense is I was on this commission when we did middle housing and I recall the community dialogue about that and I think the landscape and the world has changed quite a bit. I think communities all around are going to 35 feet. You've listed some of them in the material. I personally think as we go forward over the next several years, there will be discussion in this community about even going to 40 feet. And I guess as I read the memo and I look at the things you're talking about, you talk about in the different legislation, the complexity of it and the impending rule making and so on. And it sort of feels like, I mean, I think that's kind of the environment that we just live in 100% of the time, year after year. And I've pushed on this in myself a bit and I'm thinking about what if we just did what was proposed in the June material that went out for the public hearing. I thought that it got a pretty good response from the community, pretty favorable. I know there were some people against it. I get that. I went through it all pretty carefully, but we've got a number of organizations here in town who've come out in support of it. We have a number of professional people in the building trades and in the design trade and so on, and some of the planners. I participated in the meetings that you had over the last year, year and a half, and I got to know a few people who sat at the same table with me, and I've just heard around the community a great deal of support for this. Let me just say, I've heard support for this. So I feel like I'm kind of pushing a rock uphill here, but I guess I would just want for the record to say I'm concerned that if this gets put off, I'd really like to see it acted upon in the reasonably near future. I think there is some acceptance for it here in Eugene. I think it's definitely needed. I think the case can be made. that if you go across the entire R1 area of Eugene, which is by far and away most of the land out there, and you increase that height, that component of the capacity for housing, and this would have to work out, I know, over many years and over decades, but you put that in place, we're going to be allowing for more housing. We have... The governor has declared we have a housing emergency in Oregon. We've had that for more than a year. The situation in Eugene is the same as everywhere else. We really need it. I guess the last piece I'd say, I think it's a little hard to make. I know you guys have looked at it really thoroughly, but it seems to me if we were able to... If we went forward the way it was originally proposed in June, and once you begin to get a clear view from the rulemaking, you would be able to make any revisions if you had to in subsequent packages. I suspect there's other portions of our code that we're gonna have to address. I'm assuming when they're doing this broad rulemaking, it's gonna affect other things in the code. So, I don't know, I just, I'll kind of leave it at that. I think that you're, you know, I think you're probably, I don't know, I kind of tried to say it, I hate to see us I'd like to see us taking action where we can to allow for more flexibility and more capability to build affordable housing in this community. Anytime we start to back off from that, I think we should at least call it out and talk about it a bit. That's my piece.

Commissioner Edwards. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. I'm going to agree with Commissioner Beeson and I'm going to maybe try to articulate this a little bit differently. I think that what happens when we kind of do this kicking the can because we think that something else is coming that might change things. And we're talking about something that is far less restrictive, first of all, if that even happens. I think that the signal that it sends to the development community is let's hurry up and let's wait because You know, if we give it a year, then maybe there will be extra opportunity for additional units or whatever the benefits that come with increasing the height. I'm going to tend to agree. I would be very comfortable with moving forward and saying this body, if there was a majority, would be comfortable recommending going to 35 feet for all of the reasons that we might feel or be able to articulate. knowing that, you know, council is then going to go through their process and there is, it's an iterative process and I do think that I don't see a circumstance where we would have to go backwards to where, oh, we went to 35, now we're going to have to go back to 30. Like to me, I feel like we're going in the right direction and I don't see, because we do this all the time and there's rulemaking going on with cottage clusters. I mean, there's always like something coming that might change what we're doing right now and we do it anyway and then we change it when we're given that timeline. I'm just going to say that I'd be very supportive of moving forward rather than delaying this particular component of this package.

Thank you. Commissioner Isakson.

The light was on this way as you can see it. I completely agree. I feel like I'm glad that Commissioner Breeson brought up HB 2001 because I feel that was the first real package that I started getting involved in with the Commission. And I feel that the way that this was handled in terms of the rollout, the attention to the feedback that we were getting, the involvement with the community is not night and day different, but definitely better. And so we've gotten a tremendous amount of feedback, both positive and negative. And I don't see what would come from a delay of six months or a year, other than a delay in future housing, which we've had countless meetings to tell us that we need. I remember quickly off the top, I had 1,611 units of housing a year, which is about 50% more than we produce. So one of the questions I asked at the time was, what are we doing different today that's going to get us one more unit of housing? And it's stuff like this, or to the opposite. So I feel like at the end of the day, this body has only so many tools in its tool belt to move the needle. We've done our due diligence to let the public know. We've received that feedback. We've put forth a plan package that allows for future nips and tucks should we need it. And to Commissioner Beeson's point, this is what you're seeing kind of all around. And I'm in favor of that, so that's fine.

Can you tell us more about the draft rules related to Oregon Homes HB 2258 and how you think that will impact this issue?

Yeah, so right now, and I don't have them in front of me, but as far as height goes, there is no height limitation identified. So it identifies specific things like tree preservation or... Lot size, I'm trying to remember about density, but basically it says if you meet these handful of things, then you must be approved, essentially. And so one of those things is not height at this time. it's not listed and so we don't think we can apply a maximum height based on how it is right now is the way it appears to read. The commission is supposed to, the state commission is supposed to be reviewing, they're having a public hearing tomorrow on these standards and then is anticipated to be deliberating at the end of August, but they're not actually required to adopt the rules by the end of this year, or that is their deadline for adopting the rules.

So it sounds like that actually does not impact the height.

issue we if we say that there is a maximum height in r1 as written it appears that would be moot there would be no maximum height in r1 if you meet the other standards in the new rules So we could be, as mentioned, we were trying to find some options for dealing with some of the things, some of the compounding height bonuses, which actually are already available under Senate Bill 1537. You get 10 extra, basically one extra story right now if you request it through Senate Bill 1537. That's already there. Five feet, I mean you get 10 feet if you meet 10 units per acre. That's something we're required to approve. The bonus units add another story for those bonus units and so now you're talking about 20 additional feet on top of the 30 feet. And so that's what we were trying to find some alternatives around. But it's a lot of work to Commissioner Edwards' point about trying to look at real life situations and trying to really vet some of the different methodologies that we already have in our code and with the work in this situation when we're talking about quite a bit of extra height that we have not really grappled with in R1. You're talking about 50 and 60 foot allowances, height allowances. But all of that work could be moot if the rules pass as they are currently because there would not be a maximum height that we could apply. And I don't know, Lauren, if you have anything to add to that.

No, I think that's right. And the Oregon Homes program doesn't necessarily apply to every lot in the city. But for the lots that it does apply to, then yes. Unless the rules are modified to include an allowance for a height limit, then we wouldn't be able to apply a height limit. So it really is just kind of a question of as... everyone who's spoken has pointed out timing and what comes first and what do we wait for. And staff has given you their recommendation, but that doesn't mean that Planning Commission has to take it. You make your own recommendation, so it's up to you.

What percentage of homes would this Oregon Homes Rules apply to? Do we have any idea?

It would apply to new development, so I'm not sure I can.

Just new development?

Yeah, it is rules that you apply to new development. So you can develop new housing if you meet this handful of standards without having to go through the base zoning regulations. Is that what you mean? I'm not sure how to quantify that. So all middle housing, if it were a new development? It's any housing type. And it has to meet, let's see, I'm not sure if we want to get into the details right now, but... Yeah, Reed and Bray might be able to talk about it a little bit more, but one way to think of it is sort of, you remember supersiding for...

shelters and transitional housing. So this is sort of like super standards. If the development and the lot meet the standards in the statute and now in the rules, then that's all the developer has to look at. They don't have to look at our code standards anymore. Like we said, it's still in development. It doesn't apply to every lot in the city, but it will apply to some. I don't think we've done the analysis to figure out which and where they are and what portion of the undeveloped or redevelopable land this would apply to.

I'm looking at the other... categories we've talked about, you know, if you add an accessible unit or a bonus unit or is that considered new development that could fall under that?

I think I can speak to this a little bit. So my understanding of the program is one of the central components is it has to be a pre-approved building plan either at the state level or with the Department of Consumer Business Affairs, or they added in the proposed rules that are being discussed this week, an option for local governments to pre-approve building permit plans as well. So it would have to be somebody that submitted the plans ahead of time, got this pre-approved status, and then if they met all the other lot regulations, there's different size restrictions, and they have to be um meet the density of the zone and things like that then it takes that project out of our land use code and it lays out a very specific set of land use code standards and that's all that we would be able to apply to it so it just kind of supersedes what our local land use code standards are it would solve to meet all the building code standards it would still have to hook up to wastewater all of the electrical components and things like that but as far as our own land use code standards wouldn't apply if you qualified for this program wow

So in previous meetings, we talked about Springfield and Bend are already 35 feet, right? Okay. And even after the 2258 pass and we know which lots apply to or not, if we go with the 35 right now, which we previously discussed, the last that meet the 2258, they're out of our hands. They get a fast track, they go, they move on, so it's a moot point. Am I right? And then the ones that does not meet the 2258, our 35 still apply. Am I right? Then I don't see any reason not to go with it now. I mean, yeah. That's just my take on that. Sorry.

Yeah.

I was just agreeing that yes, the Planning Commission could direct staff to go back to our original recommendation, which was the 35 feet.

How would that impact completing our deliberations and recommendation? We would do a modification?

In anticipation that this might happen, I already have a modified motion that I think will cover it. When you get to that point, I can provide someone the motion to make or I can just read it out and then someone can .

Commissioner Clevenger?

Hopefully, these are all fast answers. You're talking about compounding some of these limits. So 35 plus the 10 unit thing gets us to 45 plus 10 units or bonus units. So 55 plus seven feet for a pitched roof gets us to 62. Okay, I'm just making sure I understand that.

Yeah, we have a table that we can flash on the screen that has those numbers if you are interested.

Okay. What's currently... Among the impacted zones by this, what's kind of like the most restrictive height limit on the books? Like where's the shortest building I could build?

The base zones, it would be R1 is the 30 foot height limit.

And there's no, there's not like a special overlay, blah, blah, anywhere that is under 30.

I don't believe so. There's some kind of unique areas of town, like the Skinner Butte area has its own high limitations. Some other subdivisions that have gone through a site review process have actual elevation caps that they have and things like that. But I believe that there's nothing that would, as far as on a residential dwelling, there are lower height limits for accessory buildings and things like that. But a residential dwelling, 30 feet is... Actually, I just I found anyone today so in the special of Jefferson Westside area zone if you do not have a 612 pitched roof Then you're actually limited to an 18-foot maximum building height in Jefferson Westside. So that would be the lowest that we have currently

It's quite low. Thinking about that sort of compounding series of heights in the, you know, we mentioned other cities that are like 35, let's do it. Do they also have the plus 10 foot bonus allocation and the seven foot pitch allocation? And I think the other one is a state requirement. So they would have that. But do they all have like 62 also their top end?

um great question um they may measure differently like they may measure to the midpoint of the roof line instead of to the highest point um so that can be a difference of a couple feet i'm not aware of other jurisdictions that have the 612 pitch specifically allowance for an additional seven feet with that, but we could look into that. Yeah, we just kind of looked at what the height, max height was for comparable zones in those other cities. We didn't dive in further. Yes, they would all have the Senate Bill 1537 allowance for an additional story and I believe it's a large cities, so cities over 10,000 have to meet the requirements that we're talking about with the bonus units. That's all pretty new legislation or law. I don't think anyone else has adopted those provisions yet. Okay.

I have one more. We received a fair amount of feedback on one project in particular, but others as well. Just concerns about height and its relation to properties around it. It's been brought to my attention that some of the concerns that were brought up are covered by other areas of our code. Things such as sunlight and how that does or does not reach a property is that that's a really broad question so i saved it for the end is there can you guys expound on that at all like what what other recourse or what other considerations might need to be made for that sort of an impact on properties around a property that decides in a neighborhood of ranch style homes to climb to go on 62.

Yeah. So that was part. Um, so first I'll address the first thing and read, feel free to jump in, but we have solar setbacks, um, which are not applicable to the, if your Northern property line is a street adjacent a street. So, um, and so in some cases where we've heard concerns about height, um, it's to an adjacent property that isn't to the North. Um, that's where the solar setback. provides that additional setback is from properties that are north of them. So in some cases that's not applicable. One of the things that we were looking at researching was the idea of a sloped setback for height and so that it's similar to pitch except for instead of dictating the pitch of the roof it's saying you can go up for a specific amount that you go back or go away from the adjacent property. So that's something we were exploring and then because we use that elsewhere in our code in several places, but there are some issues with that that we wanted to look at further to make sure that that was even a viable option. But that is one of the ways that we were trying to address the compounding issue was looking at a sloped setback.

If we have cottage clusters that are new development, can they avoid the 25-foot height limitation if they fall under HB 2258?

So, yeah, well, cottage clusters in our code would stay at 25. So just so that everyone's on the same page for that, they wouldn't be subject to the enhanced 35 foot maximum height. But if you were to design a cottage cluster unit and either get it approved through the state's program or our local program when we come up with it, and then it meets all the other lot standards and you get it in the Oregon Homes Program, as the rules are written now, there would be no height limitation. So you could go higher.

Yeah. Okay. Under the current middle housing proposed code amendments, we are looking at an increase in building height for cottage clusters. I'd have to go back and find what that is, but I think it's one story.

Could you suggest height consideration in the drafts of 2258? Do they have public hearing that we can suggest considering that in their discussion? I wonder.

Yes, they are taking testimony at the public hearing tomorrow.

And to be more specific, the city staff are looking at the draft rules. We intend to provide a letter asking mostly questions because there's so many things that are not clear in the draft of rules that we've been given. So that letter will put in and be considered along with other cities testimony.

Other questions or comments? Commissioner?

Maybe this isn't the room with the answers. I'm just thinking about where... We don't have cranes in the air all the time in town. It's kind of an issue. And thinking about where those cranes go, I think it's going to be a moot point. Maybe we don't have the answers here. But I'm just thinking about areas where... Commissioner Beeson, you mentioned the community tenor around height limits in our city and feeling like there's a greater appetite for that than there once was. And I think that's true. I don't know how blanket it is across every neighborhood, but I do think there are certainly areas of town that we're already working on identifying through CFAC process and that, because CFAs, right? Where people are like, yeah, crank it up, give me all the stories, right? And then there are other areas where I think people are like, well, I kind of bought out here because the neighborhood is this way and I made this consideration and that's part of why I bought, and to the extent that that's a valid concern. Is it, are there more things we could be doing to getting taller and more efficient development done in places where there's opportunity and agreement because like nobody really cares if a giant 15 story building goes on Sixth or Seventh Avenue, right? versus developers one at a time picking up a lot to do two units here and three units here because they got an extra 10 feet. This is maybe not the room to ask that. It'd really be a room of developers I should be asking. What are the barriers there and are we working on those things and is that a more efficient and less fracturing expenditure of our time? I guess, perhaps.

It's a great point to reflect on, I think, and something we're definitely thinking about, too, because while these proposed changes in R1 could accommodate some types of development, middle housing being a big one that we're looking towards, R1 is still not accommodating for the most part apartment buildings without a lot of extra process, right? We, in your next package, I feel like we keep saying that, but it's coming really soon, will be adopting, asking for recommendation around climate friendly areas and development standards for multi-unit development, development in our commercial zones, which are a lot of those really high density zones downtown and along our key corridors and in commercial centers around the city. So we are actively working on code changes to encourage walkable compact development there to encourage more development period in those areas. Height limit is not really the issue for the most part in those zones. It's more about everything else that comes with financing a development project. I will say that while we get Uh, we have seen a lot of apartment kind of high density development along our corridors in recent years. Um, there is still a significant need in Eugene and in our housing need for those lower density types of housing for middle housing, for townhouses, um, that accommodate different household sizes and different, um, household situations. Um, and so looking towards. all of the tools in our toolbox, which includes as was mentioned, our one being our kind of most expansive zone. Um, one of the things that we will be looking at in, uh, in partnership with our land supply studies is also, how much more medium and high density land we need that we don't necessarily have on the ground. Something we've heard from developers is that we don't have enough of those medium and high density zones beyond R1, looking at our other R zones where you can build apartments and taller. We just don't have a lot of that on the ground right now. So that is one of the things we'll be looking at once we have the results of our land supply studies, understanding how much that need is and then where we can accommodate that within the urban growth boundary. So that will certainly be something you're looking at in the near future, kind of up looking for some of that more higher density zoning across the city. I'm not sure it fully satisfies what you're asking, but hopefully a little bit.

Commissioner Edwards. Thank you. I will just say something kind of in response because I, as someone who is, has a property that's adjacent to a, an empty lot that every day I think what could go right there to the west of me, which is nowhere the sun comes up and all those things. So I always, I always think about these types of decisions through that lens. But what I see when I, a lot of the testimony that we see is, is folks who have, um, who struggle with change and based on existing standards. And so when there's opposition to things the way that they exist today and we're proposing changing them, that doesn't change their opposition to different things that not everybody loves change. Not everybody loves living in a neighborhood that is ripe for redevelopment opportunities. And I just think that we all kind of struggle with making decisions that move our community forward knowing that When you granularly look at each person in each property, I think that's part of the growing pains of a community that is trying to grow and accommodate new people. I do definitely struggle knowing that there will be people that don't love decisions that are made here. Like I said, if I can say I can deal with 35 feet behind me and I have to be able to say that, you know, that's kind of how. And I think you were you were you were kind of you were in your question kind of addressing just that. Is there places that we can other places that we can accommodate some of the.

Yeah, yeah, we've chosen to paint with a very broad brush. And I feel very privileged to be in one of the very few remaining old buildings in downtown Eugene. And people bemoan the 1980s, we decided in the name of urban renewal, to get rid of a lot of what we had in downtown Eugene. And it shows. You can go to a community like Cottage Grove, right? And it shows. And so I do like painting with this very broad brush and understanding the kinds of people who watch as much of this old house as I do. I just, I can't help but think about like, understanding their tolerance for redevelopment in their neighborhood versus redeveloping a neighborhood where it's like, well, there's nothing going on here anyway, I guess. And both can be our one. So.

Commissioner Richardson.

Excellent Bob Villa reference, by the way. Did not have that. I grew up with Norm. I'm just wondering, I mentioned briefly the new updated total on how many units of housing we have to create every year. We're at the midpoint of the year. Any idea where we're sitting for the year? Are we tracking at or above or below par?

I don't have that number in front of me. We're below par. I can easily say that.

That to me is the headline to every one of our meetings, is what are we doing and how are we tracking on par or not? And if we're going to try to come close to the 1600 number, it needs to be everything we're talking about.

Thank you. I'm remembering that historically, We're living in an area that had a culture of unlimited land and area and big lots and R1 everywhere with single-family homes. And sometimes it takes a generation for a cultural shift to embed. And I feel it's on us, you know, incumbent on us push the envelope and move it in that direction because we do have a huge housing problem, we have a state mandate, and yes, not everybody is going to be happy. Are we ready to do a straw poll?

Not to foreclose more discussion, but I'm wondering if we could just put a motion on the table.

Do we need the straw poll first?

So I think you and Commissioner Bailing are basically talking about the same thing. That there would be helpful to either have a straw poll from the Commission or it could be a binding motion but to give staff some direction about what you want to do with the height limit and then after we understand that I can provide you with the final motion for a recommendation on the package.

All right, agreeable.

I think we're ready to move forward with the motion.

I'm agreeable. I guess I'd want to follow whatever the lead is. I've been staring at the recommended motion and as we're having this discussion, I find myself thinking we can almost go with what's basically drafted except we're just taking out the modification reference from Attachment G. Because in my mind, what we're proposing is to go with what was in the original material that was taken to the public hearing in June.

So I think you said earlier that you don't think like a lawyer, but you definitely do. That is. All right, good, thanks. So I can tell you that, I'll just read out the amended motion that I would propose if the commission wants to maintain that 35 foot height limit. So very similar to the motion in the packet move to recommend that the city council adopt the proposed code amendments and attachments A through E of the packet. So that was what happened, came. forward for public hearing, modified as provided in recommendations one through eight and ten in attachment A, because recommendation nine is the removal of the new height limitation.

Do you need one of us to actually say that or can we just move as Lauren has spoken?

You can say so moved.

So moved.

Okay. Is there a second? Thank you. All in favor? Thank you, are you opposed?

Abstaining is an option in this particular meeting.

Okay, thank you. Five in favor and one abstention. Moving on.

Thank you. Thank you, Planning Commission. So we're doing things a little out of order because you were so enthusiastic about your motion, which is great. But we wanted to spend a slide talking about some of the other input that we received that is beyond the scope of this package and why we weren't including it.

Okay, so we received other testimony that again, like Rebecca said, was beyond the scope of this adoption package one. For the middle housing code amendments, much of the testimony received included support for making it easier to do more housing types. There were a few comments that were about specific code changes. The testimony received also included a few suggestions in response to the Middle Housing Code Amendments that we could explore further. And so while this was made in response to the Middle Housing Code Amendments regarding land divisions, I think it was a broader suggestion that in the middle housing land divisions, we are proposing to change the expiration timeline to actually increase it from 18 months to 36 months for a land use approval. The comment was couldn't we extend the expiration timeline for all other type 2 land use approvals like just a standard subdivision so that could go from 18 months to 36 months and then that would align with expedited and middle housing land divisions. And we wanted to mention that there is I feel like a broken record. There is new legislation that is not addressed in this package regarding expediting more land use applications for housing. We're suggesting that we look at this suggestion for increasing the expiration time frame as part of the code amendments that we'll need to do related to expediting more land use applications for housing. Um, we also got a number of specific comments regarding suggestions related to chapter seven, which chapter nine is our land use provisions. Chapter seven is more around public improvements. And so these comments were specifically regarding access management standards. and that some of the Chapter 7 provisions be modified, particularly for middle housing development. Basically, that the provisions were barriers or maybe too big in scope for that level of development. We've heard this before. This is something we've been working on. We've had a couple meetings with public works staff trying to coordinate between Chapter 7, Chapter 9, the new climate-friendly and equitable communities regulation requirements that we need to adopt. Our proposal is that we continue working on that. It's complicated. It doesn't have to be addressed in Chapter 9. We can work on these provisions related to Chapter 7 through a different process, but it really requires close work with our public works folks because they're not in our lane. No pun intended. But I do want to mention that because we do realize that there is some better coordination that could happen between those standards so that they're aligned better and potentially reduce some of the standards that are in Chapter 7. But again, trying to stay to my lane and not promise that. um there were also comments about removing the overlays removing overlay zones and i think that was specific to removing site review overlay for more prop for more properties we are as part of package number two which will be coming to you we are looking at removing the site review overlay, which is basically what that overlay is. If you have that overlay, then you're doing new development. You're required to do a site review land use application, which is extra land use application process that maybe you would just be able to go straight to building permit. We are looking at... starting with the climate-friendly areas and then part of the, or all the Willakenzie area, which is part of the climate-friendly area, and exploring removing site review related to those areas. the climate-friendly areas, the site review overlay needs to be removed. And so that kind of opens up looking at, okay, why was it required in this area in the first place? And in many cases, site review was applied long ago, and now our standards in our code have been updated. So we don't actually need the site review anymore. We've got the standards adopted in the code. So all that to say is that we are starting that and you will see pieces of that coming to you with package two. Staff is considering or have already included in later packages.

That's basically what you already said. Yeah. So you already did your recommendation. You're way ahead of things. And just super quickly, I wanted to acknowledge that we have one meeting with you in August. We are bringing the public facilities and services chapter for the comprehensive plan for you to take a look at that. Chapter is included in package 3 but as with the previous chapters that are coming to you for adoption in the fall for adoption recommendation in the fall we brought those to you ahead of time in the draft form so we're bringing the draft. Early draft for you to look at and ask questions about August 11th. And then adoption package due process begins with work sessions and a public hearing probably in October. And we will get that on your calendar soon. Thank you so much for your time this evening and a very great conversation.

Commissioner Malin, may I say one more thing?

Certainly.

Thank you. This certainly doesn't need to happen tonight. There's plenty of time. But in the past, the Planning Commission has wanted to, in some circumstances, do something like draft a letter to the city council explaining the recommendation or delegate authority to one or more planning commissioners to go to the public hearing on behalf of the planning commission to speak to the recommendation. And so again, you don't need to make any decisions around that tonight, but something to think about if that is of interest to the commission.

Thank you. Commissioner Beeson, did you have something on there? I do.

I want to say thank you to the staff. I think we've done this a number of times and I think you know that we appreciate, I appreciate you a lot. This process has gone on, they'd mentioned it's gone on a couple of years. There have been a number of meetings and a number of meetings with the council. And I think one of the reasons, and I was talking about this a little bit at the last meeting, after the meeting, I think this has gone really well for, well, it's gone well in terms of our deliberations in part because of the way that you guys have set this whole thing up and the way that you organized it and the way that you managed it over over this time period, the way that you included the community, all of the process that you did, and there's a long kind of list of what you've done, but everything's been done in a way that I think when we reach this point, it's all been pretty clear. It's not to say we haven't had questions and so on, but I think in general, it's felt... You know, we've kind of gone through it, and we've talked with the people who are going to be impacted. We've tried to get input. And I think what we've prepared here, and we're getting ready to send to the council, it may be that we'll want to put a letter with that. Maybe that would be a good thing to do. But I feel like there's just been a lot of good work done in large part because of the way that you guys set this whole thing up and ran it. So thank you.

I agree completely. Commissioner Young.

First of all, I want to see if Lauren suggests that we write a letter. I'm new to the commission, but the last time, remember, we wrote a letter, actually two letters is when we have a very close vote, right? And so even though tonight's recommendation, it's not unanimous, it's highly aligned, I could say. So let us know if you think that there is a strong reason that we shall compel to write and explain it. The other thing I was going to say is that I agree with Commissioner Beeson that even though we may have made a different recommendation than what the staff presented initially, but I felt that we were always, every meeting we were always equipped with the information that you provided, especially for somebody who is not in this field. And so even though we make a different recommendation, it was a informed and thoughtful recommendation. So I hope that you all understand that we really appreciate. That's the material that we always go back to, even though we may come up with a different recommendation. That's all.

Commissioner Edwards. Hey, thank you. I would just like to express strong support to have, you know, something drafted and or read by somebody at the public hearing for council. If we can talk about that maybe in our next meeting. I don't necessarily want to take the time tonight to fine tune that or maybe it's something we could have drafted and review here by the commission. I think we have time, right? Because if we're here, if maybe we could create some space on the agenda just to finalize that. If folks are in agreement, I'm not volunteering because I will probably be testifying on behalf of some other entity, but I strongly would support if this body would like to make that recommendation.

Are you thinking it would be to explain why we are in favor of the height increase at this time?

Yes, I think that that specific component of this package and being able to articulate the different things that were said tonight, I think that would be important to relay to council.

I personally would like to get us in the habit of whenever we make a recommendation to council on anything, that we go and explain ourselves. They're our boss. And they're charging us with a task to flush this out, and that we should go and present our findings, whatever they are, on any recommendation that we do. So they should just start the practice.

Thank you. Any other items from commissioners? Staff?

Sure, thank you. What a fantastic meeting. Thank you all. As Rebecca mentioned, your next meeting is August 11th. It'll be on the Public Facilities and Services chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. We don't yet have any agenda items for August 25th, so that meeting could be canceled. And we may want to because you will be having two to three meetings a month for the rest of the year to get all of this stuff through. So September, October, November, and December are all really full. Would anyone be sad if we canceled the August 25th Planning Commission meeting?

No.

Okay. I will follow up with an email to you all for your August updates. Oh, and one other thing. Council is on break right now, but they did have a meeting right after your last meeting where they approved the housing production incentives on an 8-0 vote. So that's great news for this project and for housing incentives for Eugene.

And when would they be considering... When will this go to them?

This is going to them this fall. They have their hearing October 19th, I believe, is the council hearing. Yeah, that's all I have. Thank you.

Anything else from staff? Thank you all. Thank you, thank you, thank you. You are amazing. You know I think you're amazing. This meeting of the Planning Commission is adjourned.