JWN PlanJam Workshop #1

Similar documents
Housing and Coach House Guidelines - Ladner

Planned Residential Neighborhoods Land Use Goals

Planning Charlotte s Future. Planning Committee June 21, 2016

IV. UNDERSTANDING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER IN

4.1.3 LAND USE CATEGORIES

TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PINELLAS COUNTY MPO LIVABLE COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE PINELLAS COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS

2030 Comprehensive Plan VISION STATEMENT

TO: Denver Planning Board FROM: Analiese Hock, Senior City Planner DATE: March 13, 2018 RE:

CONTENTS 8.0 LAND USE 8.1 GENERAL LAND USE 8.2 RESIDENTIAL 8.3 MIXED USE 8.4 COMMERCIAL 8.5 EMPLOYMENT LANDS

EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

CDAC. Update: Downtown Dartmouth Update: CDAC July 25 th Motion

City of Vaughan Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Development in Established Low-Rise Residential Neighbourhoods

Infill Residential Design Guidelines

ORDINANCE NO Section 1. Section of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by adding the

4780 Eglinton Avenue West - Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications - Preliminary Report

URBAN DESIGN BRIEF REPORT

CHAPTER 3 VISION, GOALS, & PLANNING PRINCIPLES. City of Greensburg Comprehensive Plan. Introduction. Vision Statement. Growth Management Goals.

13. New Construction. Context & Character

Staff Report to the North Ogden City Planning Commission

Official Plan Review: Draft Built Form Policies

B L A C K D I A M O N D D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S for Multi-family Development

Zoning Code Issues Prioritization

17.11 Establishment of Land Use Districts

Analysis of Environs of Clinton Park located at 901 W 5 th Street

WELCOME and introduction

INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD AREA PLAN. Economic Development Committee Overview May 25, 2010

Summary of Public Input & Discussion of Alternatives

Analysis of Environs of 1000 New York Street, German Methodist Episcopal Church

URBAN DESIGN BRIEF. 2136&2148 Trafalgar Road. Town of Oakville

East Central Area Plan

BENSON / HUNT TERTIARY PLAN

INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD AREA PLAN. Economic Development Committee Overview March 10, 2011

Planned Development Review Revisions (Project No. PLNPCM )

II. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

DRAFT. 10% Common Open Space

V. Vision and Guiding Principles

The Five Components of the McLoughlin Area Plan

SECTION TWO: Overall Design Guidelines

4. Shape Transitions. 4. Shape Transitions

Lehigh Acres Land Development Regulations Community Planning Project

PROTECT AND PROMOTE QUALITY OF LIFE AND LIVABILITY FOR THE CITIZENS OF GAINESVILLE THROUGH QUALITY URBAN DESIGN.

Draft Cary Community Plan Review Part 3: Shop, Engage, Serve, Special Area Plans, Other Updates. October 27, 2015 Police Department Training Room

Uptown Rideau Street Secondary Plan [Amendment #166, January 12, 2016]

DOWNTOWN GEORGETOWN PLANNING STUDY

In surveys, Dallas residents say what they want to change most

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

SECTION UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE SECTION Part 1 Ordinance. ARTICLE 1 Zoning Districts

New Street Proposed Redevelopment Architecture & Urban Design Brief

Historic Yonge Street HCD Study Public Meeting #2

DOWNTOWN CHAPEL HILL SMALL AREA PLAN

TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT POLICY DRAFT. City Planning and Development Department Kansas City, Missouri

Staff Report and Recommendation

1120 Haist Street - Pelham Arena Community Co-Design Recommendation Report Haist Street - Pelham Arena Community Co-Design Recommendation Report

150 Eighth Street Zoning By-law Amendment Application Preliminary Report

SUBCHAPTER 4-B GUIDELINES FOR THE B-3 COMMERCIAL CHARACTER AREA

WAC #7 3/14/14. Coachella General Plan Update

CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD Site Plan and Design Review Guidelines Checklist

Planning Charlotte s Future. Planning Committee May 17, 2016

Town of Peru Comprehensive Plan Executive Summary

University of Saskatchewan CAMPUS MASTER PLAN. Senate Meeting Preliminary Presentation. April 21, 2018 DIALOG ECS DA WATT

SDOT DPD. SDOT Director s Rule DPD Director s Rule DCLU DR SED DR of 7 CITY OF SEATTLE

Urban Design Manual PLANNING AROUND RAPID TRANSIT STATIONS (PARTS) Introduction. Station Study Areas

Port Lavaca Future Land Use

SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2040 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

599 Kennedy Road - Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment Application - Preliminary Report

, C-MS I June 3, 2016 $1500 pd chk #216918

Queen Street West - Zoning Amendment Application - Preliminary Report

TOWN COUNCIL / PLANNING COMMISSION

East Central Area Plan

SECTION II SECTION II STATEMENT OF GOALS, OBJECTIVES, PRINCIPLES, ASSUMPTIONS, POLICIES AND STANDARDS

Shared Principles and Emerging Plan Directions

Future Five. Design/ Development Guidelines. January 2008 Amended June 08 per City Council motion

Slot Home Task Force Meeting #5 Phase 2 June 8, 2017

THE POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR WALKABLE COMMUNITIES. Community Technical Assistance Program Building Active Communities Institute March 2016

City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop March 20, 2018

A. WHAT IS A GENERAL PLAN?

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

Policies and Code Intent Sections Related to Town Center

City of Kingston. North King s Town Secondary Plan Open House + Workshop #1 February 28, 2018

[PLANNING RATIONALE] For Site Plan Control and Lifting of Holding Zone By-Law 101 Champagne Avenue. May 23, 2014

4- PA - LD - LIVELY DOWNTOWN. LD - Background

POLICY AMENDMENT AND LAND USE AMENDMENT KILLARNEY/GLENGARRY (WARD 8) NW CORNER OF RICHMOND ROAD AND 33 STREET SW BYLAWS 1P2015 AND 7D2015

Mobility Districts and Traffic Studies

1071 King Street West Zoning Amendment Application - Preliminary Report

Residential Design Standards Stakeholders Meeting

International Blvd. TOD Plan Public Workshop #1

Steering Committee Meeting

John M. Fleming Managing Director, Planning and City Planner. Old East Village Dundas Street Corridor Secondary Plan Draft Terms of Reference

1.0 Purpose of a Secondary Plan for the Masonville Transit Village

DRAFT Northeast Quadrant of Kipling Avenue and Highway 7 DRAFT AUGUST 29, Goals Land Use. The goals of this Plan are to:

It Takes A Village.. Preserving Rural Character In Standish

burlington mobility hubs study Downtown Burlington Mobility Hub

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM

MATURE SUBURBS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES

ARTICLE 6: Special and Planned Development Districts

GUIDELINES. Transit Oriented Development. Approved by Edmonton City Council on February 15, 2012 in tandem with City Policy C565

ORANGE LINE TRANSIT NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS VAN NUYS NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL, PLUM COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Citizen Advisory Group Meeting 5: Land Use April 14, 2011

Independence Boulevard Area Plan Planning Committee Public Comment May 18, 2010

ELK GROVE GENERAL PLAN VISION

Transcription:

Planning for a healthy, vibrant neighborhood community JWN PlanJam Workshop #1 Presented by the Jefferson Westside Neighbors jwneugene.org More information on the Web at: jwneugene.org/infillstds

Welcome! Your workshop coordinators are: Rene Kane, JWN Chair renekane@comcast.net Paul Conte, former JWN Co-chair pconte@picante-soft-com Please complete registration card Facilities Cell phones on stun, please. This workshop is for JWN members. Residents, property owners, business principals Guests are welcome as observers Before you leave, please complete evaluation form

Agenda 8:30 a.m. 8:45 a.m. 9:00 a.m. Registration Welcome; introduction to the workshop Background of infill compatibility standards issues and process 9:15 a.m. Description of the JWN heritage area that is the focus of the first set of standards 9:30 a.m. Assessment of neighborhood character 10:00 a.m. BREAK 10:15 a.m. Assessment of negative impacts from incompatible infill 11:00 a.m. Identifying critical areas for infill compatibility standards 11:40 a.m. Charting what comes next 11: 50 a.m. Workshop evaluation 12:00 Noon End of workshop

Why Infill Compatibility Standards? We have a serious problem with incompatible infill that is degrading and destabilizing areas of the Jefferson and Westside neighborhoods.

What is the solution? Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) in a nutshell Land use code amendments that prevent negative impacts, and promote positive impacts, of residential infill development on neighborhoods. From ICS Task Team Charter The ICS Task Team s Project Goals Statement Create and adopt land use code standards and processes that (a) Prevent residential infill that would significantly threaten or diminish the stability, quality, positive character, livability or natural resources of residential neighborhoods; and (b) Encourage residential infill that would enhance the stability, quality, positive character, livability or natural resources of residential neighborhoods; and (c) So long as the goal stated in (a) is met, allow for increased density, a variety of housing types, affordable housing, and mixed-use development; and (d) Improve the appearance of buildings and landscapes.

What is being done? City Council initiated two major projects and established two task teams Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) Task Team Recommend standards to protect neighborhoods against negative impacts of incompatible infill Opportunity Siting (OS) Task Team Recommend process and incentives to promote well-designed, higher-density development on suitable sites that will enhance surrounding residential neighborhoods. JWN membership has endorsed both projects and JWN members have been actively participating JWN representatives on ICS Task Team and its committees JWN worked with OS Task Team to conduct two OS workshops in summer 2008

How ICS and OS relate Create Properly-Sited, Well-Designed Higher Density Housing Protect Neighborhoods Infill Compatibility Standards Opportunity Siting = Residential neighborhoods that are: Attractive Vibrant Sustainable Diverse Compact

Prior work & resources Westside Neighborhood Plan (1987) Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan (1983) Chambers Reconsidered project (2005) City Web site & documents Chambers Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN) Web site Neighbors Report Promoting Compatible Development in a Mature Neighborhood Downtown Area Housing Policy Analysis

Eugene s first infill

Recent infill on same block

Planned schedule Summer 08 ICS supports JWN concept of overlay zone to implement infill standards applicable to heritage area zone R-2 Oct. 08 JWN board directs Chair to implement JWN process JWN newsletter provides info on infill and PlanJam Nov. 22 08 PlanJam Workshop #1 Nov.-Dec. 08 Survey #1 on neighborhood character, negative impacts, stds. areas Dec. 08 JWN board approves preliminary proposal for standards Jan. 09 JWN newsletter provides recap of Workshop #1 and preliminary proposal Jan. 13 09 JWN general meeting, recap WS #1 and prelim. proposal Jan. 14-20 09 Survey #2 on preliminary proposal Jan. 24 09 PlanJam Workshop #2 on proposed standards Jan. 27 09 JWN board approves recommendation for standards Feb. 10 09 JWN general meeting vote on recommendation Feb. 09 ICS Multi-Dwelling Infill committee recommends approval Mar. 09 ICS Task Team recommends approval May. 09 Planning Commission recommends approval July 09 City Council adopts recommended code amendments

The R-2 Heritage area Two large sections of Westside and Jefferson Pre- and post-war development Predominantly single-family, small duplexes and secondary dwellings R-2 zone originally meant two dwellings Most lots had one or two dwellings By early 1980 s, R-2 allowed apartments, but maximum density meant most lots still allowed only 1 or 2 dwellings R-2 now allows two or three times as many dwellings Common 60 x160 lot allows up to 9 dwellings Buildings can be 40 high (and higher) and only 5 from adjacent property line

Tentative R-2 Heritage area

Why this area? Highly threatened section of Westside and Jefferson Similar areas west of Polk (in Westside) and east of fairgrounds (in Jefferson) have protective zoning (SC and R-1) Effectively, this area was stealth re-zoned from single-family/duplex to high-density redevelopment Large body of relevant work already done during Chambers Revisited project. Volunteers who live in this area have been active After this area is protected, will look at other areas if there s resident support

Foundations for Infill Compatibility Standards NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER & INFILL IMPACTS

Steps to create standards Modest, semi-private backyards Neighborhood Character

Steps to create standards Modest, semi-private backyards Neighborhood Character Use to understand impacts Negative Impacts Loss of privacy Crowding

Steps to create standards Modest, semi-private backyards Neighborhood Character Use to understand impacts Negative Impacts Loss of privacy Crowding Use to determine what is compatible & should be promoted For structures in rear of lot: Maximum height Minimum setbacks Areas for infill standards Use to determine what to prevent

Steps to create standards Modest, semi-private backyards Neighborhood Character Use to understand impacts Negative Impacts Loss of privacy Crowding Use to determine what is compatible & should be promoted For structures in rear of lot: Maximum height Minimum setbacks Areas for infill standards Use to determine what to prevent For structures further than 60 from front lot line: Max height = 18 feet Min setback = 5 up to 8, then 1 more for each 1 in additional height Use to scope and prioritize work Development standards in code

Now for the fun!... Establishing effective infill compatibility standards requires a shared, objective understanding of: Essential positive elements of the neighborhood character (standards should promote these characteristics) Significant negative impacts of incompatible development (standards should prevent these impacts) This understanding provides a foundation for community support. Objective for next two segments of the workshop: Engage participants in understanding and further work on these two assessments

... and work! Establishing effective infill compatibility standards requires a shared, objective understanding of: Essential positive elements of the neighborhood character (standards should promote these characteristics) Significant negative impacts of incompatible development (standards should prevent these impacts) This understanding provides a foundation for community support. Objective for next two segments of the workshop: Engage participants in understanding and further work on these two assessments

Assessing neighborhood character and infill impacts Goal Develop a shared understanding of neighborhood character and potential negative impacts from incompatible infill. List of key elements of neighborhood character List with descriptions of potential negative impacts Record opinions on importance, prevalence, local examples, and other observations How used To help create infill standards that promote positive neighborhood characteristics and prevent significant negative impacts.

Introduction to neighborhood character Looking to identify the essential, positive, characteristics that make define and distinguish this area of the JWN. Both qualitative and quantitative. Includes both natural and built environment. As a starting point, the most fundamental characteristic of a neighborhood is usually its geography and pattern of streets, alleys, and lots. Both Westside and Jefferson are flat, grid-patterned neighborhoods.

Neighborhood character A dynamic, living environment that includes: Residents and visitors Houses and other structures Streets, alleys and sidewalks Cars and bicycles Trees, gardens, lawns, and other plants Domestic and wild animals And more -- Neighbors Report

Neighborhood character Predominantly single-family nature, older homes, tree-lined streets, and mature vegetation -- Westside Neighborhood Plan Primarily single-family residential structures built between 1920 and 1950 the average parcel size is 8,276 square feet -- Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan Long-term residents committed to neighborhood Grid-pattern streets, alleys, and lots Ample & varied vegetation, tree canopy, wildlife Semi-private backyards, gardens Oriented to pedestrians, not cars Many more elements to consider... (See handout)

What are infill impacts? Examples of negative impacts from incompatible infill Views into adjacent backyard intrude on privacy Parking or excessive driveway surface in front of structure (i.e., between structure and street

Introduction to infill impacts Impacts may be: Functional (e.g., noise, reduced rear-yard privacy) Aesthetic (e.g., roof shape) Combination (e.g., garage location, front porches) Impacts should be as concrete as possible Impacts can affect different scopes Immediately adjacent properties and residents Residents on the same block or across the street Residents who use nearby street(s), alley(s), and sidewalks Residents in a larger section of the neighborhood Impacts can be dependent on the scale of development E.g., Number of dwellings, number of bedrooms, parking spaces.

Introduction to infill impacts Impacts can be dependent on the cumulative effects of similar developments E.g., Traffic load, permeable surfaces, greenscape, etc. E.g., A few alley-access dwellings on a single block may be OK, but too many can create significant negative traffic impacts. Built-out neighborhood s have a limited carrying capacity. Exceeding the carrying capacity can destabilize an area. Location and context is important: Interior to the residential neighborhood; i.e., development within built-out area of existing residences Outside the edges of the established residential area and transition zones may provide different opportunities than interior areas Type of streets (alleys, low-volume interior, busy residential, non-residential thoroughfares, etc.) can change nature of impacts Existing adjacent and nearby development creates comparative context and/or cumulative effects Different areas of lots (front and rear) may be impacted Many more elements to consider... (See handout and examples)

Introduction to areas of infill compatibility standards Provides a way to organize and prioritize work on standards. Typically important areas Lot configuration Dwellings per lot Mass and scale Placement of structures (and lot coverage) Form of structures (e.g., attached/detached, roof shape) Specific conditions (alley development, small lots) This step identifies the areas to address and objectives for standards within each area. More areas to consider... (See handout)

Next steps Summer 08 ICS supports JWN concept of overlay zone to implement infill standards applicable to heritage area zone R-2 Oct. 08 JWN board directs Chair to implement JWN process JWN newsletter provides info on infill and PlanJam TODAY PlanJam Workshop #1 Nov.-Dec. 08 Survey #1 on neighborhood character, negative impacts, stds. areas Dec. 08 JWN board approves preliminary proposal for standards Jan. 09 JWN newsletter provides recap of Workshop #1 and preliminary proposal Jan. 13 09 JWN general meeting, recap WS #1 and prelim. proposal Jan. 13-20 09 Survey #2 on preliminary proposal Jan. 24 09 PlanJam Workshop #2 on proposed standards Jan. 27 09 JWN board approves recommendation for standards Feb. 10 09 JWN general meeting vote on recommendation Feb. 09 ICS Multi-Dwelling Infill committee recommends approval Mar. 09 ICS Task Team recommends approval May. 09 Planning Commission recommends approval July 09 City Council adopts recommended code amendments

Workshop evaluation Did you get enough information to participate effectively? What information was useful? What information was missing? Were the group discussions an effective way to accomplish the goals? Did you have enough time? How well did the discussions address the goals? Complaints or suggestions? Do you feel you have an adequate foundation for the next workshop on a recommendation for infill standards? What more do you need to be able to help define site selection and project approval criteria?

A parting thought... 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. Chambers Reconsidered project team

Thank you & stay tuned! JWN Web site: jwneugene.org