The Eugene City Council meets tomorrow (Monday, July 19) at 5:30 PM to conduct a hearing on the topic of a proposed amendment to Commercial Setback requirements in the Eugene Code. The Planning Commission previously recommended approval of the amended code language. Before voting on the issue, Council members want to hear from citizens with concerns about the revised setback requirements.
For the purposes of the amendment, the setbacks at issue are those associated with the minimum distance a building or other structure must be set back from the property line bordering the public right-of-way. Presently, Section 9.2170 of the Eugene Code (Commercial Zone Development Standards) prescribes no minimum front yard setback in the C-2 (Community Commercial) and C-3 (Major Commercial) zones, whereas as amended they would be 5 feet and 3 feet, respectively. The maximum front yard setback would remain unchanged at 15 feet. Additionally, the amendment would mandate landscaping or “enhanced pedestrian spaces” within the setbacks. The code would include exemptions from these requirements if certain conditions are met.
The work the Planning Division performed in developing the code amendment included convening a focus group last November to discuss the preliminary concepts and reasoning behind them. Teri Harding, Principal Planner with the Eugene Planning Division, asked me to participate and I was happy and honored to do so. The diverse group(1) included representation by developers, architects, landscape architects, planners, realtors, property appraisers, and downtown Eugene stakeholders.
The focus group arrived at some general conclusions:
- The setback amendments should not be the same citywide. Downtown, transit corridors, and other neighborhood centers have different conditions and goals and should not be treated the same. Likewise, the C-2 and C-3 zones should not be treated identically, except in the Downtown Transit Overlay District (as they are now).
- Street and sidewalk design are equally important as the building interface. The design of the buildings cannot be expected to correct fundamental problems inherent in the design of the streets. The City should focus efforts to ensure the streetscape and sidewalks support vibrant pedestrian environments in the downtown, along key corridors, and within other neighborhood commercial centers.
- Encourage ground floor residential units. Well-designed ground floor residential can help fulfill Eugene’s need for affordable and diverse housing options.
- Strengthen design requirements for financial incentive programs (i.e. MUPTE). Such incentive programs provide the City with leverage to secure better design outcomes.
The participants also agreed when it came to what no one wants to see more of. A bugaboo common to all is the abominable 13th & Olive student housing development and how it meets the surrounding streets; while the sidewalks surrounding the developments are overly narrow, it is doubtful any tweaking of the setback requirements alone would have spared us from this blight upon downtown. The nature of the setbacks fronting the streets is only one factor in determining a successful pedestrian domain.
Land use codes are necessary to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. Municipalities constantly revise them as thinking about urban form and the separation of usages (Euclidean zoning) has evolved over the years. Smart growth strategies emphasizing mixed uses, an increase in the range of housing opportunities, and favoring compact growth have led to greater reliance upon form-based codes. A form-based code (which the City’s proposed setback ordinance essentially is) does increase the probability of achieving desirable physical outcomes. Implemented correctly, form-based codes provide a set of clear and reliable design standards. Conversely, there is a risk of creating an overly rigid regulatory condition, one that discourages investment in the local real estate market.
It is prudent to be wary of imperfect planning tools shaped by imperfect, albeit well-intentioned, human beings. The fact architects either chafe at the overly prescriptive nature of form-based codes, or lazily default to reflexive conformance with their requirements doesn’t help. The dynamics of development and the factors that contribute to achieving a livable community will always be far too complex to flawlessly codify and regulate. Regardless, actively specifying the shape of development—as opposed to doing nothing at all—is necessary if we want the right outcome for our built environment.
While not formally codified, the patterns enumerated by the City of Eugene’s Community Design Handbook provide an eminently accessible set of design principles and guidelines. The guidelines include strategies for using built forms and natural edges to define spaces, create networks of complete streets, enrich the streetscape, design for human scale, and engage the public realm. The City derived these principles and guidelines from proven best practices and examples found here and elsewhere, with the assistance of a diverse group of community champions.(2) Taken together, they do provide a template for urban design excellence.
At the time of the Community Design Handbook’s development, I questioned its reliance upon shallow “motherhood and apple pie” statements that lacked enough specificity to be truly meaningful. My fear was the absence of clear and objective standards would render the document toothless. Would well-meaning developers, architects, and designers interpret its underlying principles in contradictory and conflicting ways if the City of Eugene elected to not formalize the patterns as code amendments? Ultimately, I think boils down to whether any given project’s participants fully embrace the goals of the Handbook.
The proposed amendments to the Eugene Code concerning commercial setbacks may be the most expedient device immediately available to the City’s planners, so their adoption seems presaged. I do understand the necessity of a prescriptive land use ordinance but increasingly, I think a looser, more flexible, and pattern-based approach will prove the more effective means to consistently achieving universally appealing streetscapes. A one-size-fits-all formula ensconced within a prescriptive ordinance is not the answer. Rather than designing prescriptively, we should tackle every design problem holistically, in a balanced fashion tailored to the specifics of each project and site.
I can imagine a copiously hyper-linked electronic version of the Community Design Handbook one day being available. Such a tool would make it easy to go down whatever rabbit hole you need to find concrete strategies for how to “shape public spaces for human comfort, proportions, and intended uses.” The success of every project would thus rely heavily upon the ability of talented architects and designers to synthesize the numerous considerations demanded by the Handbook, as opposed to an uncritical obedience to generic regulations.
* * * * * *
If you would like to view and possibly speak at tomorrow’s virtual hearing about the proposed code amendment, look for information on how to participate at the following website just prior to its scheduled time: https://www.eugene-or.gov/3360/Webcasts-and-Meeting-Materials.
(1) Besides me, the other focus group participants were:
- Claire Barnum, Downtown Eugene, Inc.
- Mike DeLuise, Past Chair Downtown Neighborhood Association, Amazon Corner resident
- Rick Duncan, Duncan & Brown, Inc.
- Stan Honn, Honn Design & Construction
- Colin McArthur, Cameron McCarthy Landscape Architecture & Planning
- Mark Miksis, deChase Miksis
- Steve Ochs, Homes for Good
- Hugh Prichard, Prichard Partners
- John Rowell, Rowell Brokaw Architects
- Rick Satre, The Satre Group
- Stephanie Seubert, Evans Elder Brown & Seubert
No comments:
Post a Comment