General Meeting of February 11, 2020

• 9 non JWN resident attendees
• 70 JWN resident attendees of which:
• 7 board members

NOTE: votes tallies vary from attendance because not everyone voted on every motion and some people departed early.

Final Vote Tallies

Motion #1: motion passed
Yea 45
Nay 18

Motion #2: motion passed
Yea 41
Nay 16

Motion #3: motion passed
Yea: 45
Nay: 14

Motion #4: motion passed
Yea: 29
Nay: 25

Motion Details

MOTION 1   MOVED: The JWN Executive Board as a body, and all board members individually, are directed to take all appropriate actions to ensure that any and all code amendments to the R-1, S-JW and S-C Zones, which may arise from House Bill 2001 or other reasons, ensure the following:

1. a) Statewide Planning Goal 1 — Citizen Involvement is implemented to the fullest extent during the code amendment planning and adoption process by engaging JWN members, especially property owners and residents in these three zones; and
2. b) The Envision Eugene policy to “Protect, Repair and Enhance Neighborhood Livability” is implemented to the fullest extent in the respective code’s list of permitted uses and lot and development approval criteria, including, but not limited to the following criteria: permitted uses, maximum dwelling density, minimum lot size, maximum height, minimum setbacks, vehicle access and parking requirements, open space and permeable surfaces, solar access, etc.

Discussion: Motion 1 identifies existing state and city policies. It directs the board to ensure that the City implements these policies to the fullest extent, particularly in response to House Bill 2001, which mandates that the City upzone all single-family areas of the JWN (and other neighborhoods). The motion expresses the sense of JWN members that, while a person serves as a JWN board member, that person is to: a) support the interests of full participation by the affected stakeholders in the identified zones; b) support stakeholders in developing recommendations for the entire JWN membership to consider; and c) support all related recommendations that are adopted by the JWN membership.

MOTION 2    MOVED: It is the position of the Jefferson Westside Neighbors that the following maximum density limits should not be increased unless and until there are proposed refinement plan amendments developed by a neighborhood-based Planning Team and subsequent final approval by City Council of refinement plan amendments addressing changes to these density limits:

1. a) 14 dwelling units per net acre for lots in the Jefferson Westside Neighbors that are zoned “R-1 Low-Density Residential Zone”; and
2. b) 14 dwelling units per net acre in the areas designated as “Low Density Residential” in the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan “Land Use Diagram”; and
3. c) 20 dwelling units per net acre in the areas designated as “Low-Medium Density Residential” in the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan “Land Use Diagram.”

Discussion: Motions 2 and 3 provide specific policy direction with respect to upzoning the density in our mostly single-family areas without a robust engagement of the stakeholders that would be affected.

MOTION 3   MOVED: It is the position of the Jefferson Westside Neighbors that the effective maximum density limits should not be increased unless and until there are proposed Eugene Code amendments developed by a neighborhood-based Planning Team and subsequent final approval by City Council of Eugene code amendments addressing changes to the following development criteria:

9. a) Table 9.3625 S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone Development Standards or to the density calculations in EC 9.3626(1) and EC 9.3065(3)(a); and
10. b) 14 dwelling units per net acre in the areas designated as “Low Density Residential” in the Westside Neighborhood Plan “Land Use Diagram.

MOTION 4   MOVED: It is the position of the Jefferson Westside Neighbors that policies, land use code and tax exemptions or other subsidies should prioritize medium- and high-density residential and mixed-use development within the Jefferson Westside Neighbors on appropriate locations along the West Eugene EmX Extension route on W. 7th Ave., within the area designated “4. West 7th Avenue Commercial Area” in the Westside Neighborhood Plan (the applicable neighborhood refinement plan for the portions of the JWN that borders W. 7th Ave.)

Discussion: Motion 4 provides specific recommendation for how substantial new housing can be created in the JWN that would benefit both households needing or desiring transit-oriented housing, as well as local business. This strategy would be a “net-positive” for climate change and housing affordability, as well.

 

MOTION 3 – Referenced Land Use Code

Eugene Code 9.3065 S-C Chambers Special Area Zone – Development Standards.

(3) Development Standards Applicable in S-C/R-2 Subarea.

(a) Density Standards. In lieu of the density standards for the R-2 zone in Table 9.2750 and EC 9.2750(1), there is no minimum density requirement regardless of lot size, and the following maximum density standards apply:

1. For lots with street access:
2. One dwelling unit if the lot area is less than or equal to 4,500 square feet.
3. Two dwelling units if the lot area is greater than 4,500 square feet and less than or equal to 9,200 square feet.
4. Three dwelling units if the lot area is greater than 9,200 square feet.
5. For alley access lots: One dwelling unit regardless of lot size.

Eugene Code 9.3626 Special [S-JW] Development Standards for Table 9.3625.

(1) Density. For purposes of determining the maximum allowable dwellings on a lot:

(a) A dwelling with five or fewer bedrooms that is the only dwelling on a street-abutting lot that is at least 4,500 square feet shall be counted as one dwelling.

(b) Two dwellings that together have a total of six or fewer bedrooms, and that are the only dwellings located on a street-fronting lot that is at least 4,500 square feet, and where at least one residential building on the lot has a front facade that faces a street and is within the street maximum setback, shall be counted as two dwellings.

(c) For cases not covered by sections (a) and (b), above, the dwelling count shall be the sum of the dwelling counts calculated under the following subsections:

1. The total dwelling count for all dwellings with three or fewer bedrooms shall be the number of dwellings,
2. The total dwelling count for all dwellings with four or more bedrooms shall be the total number of bedrooms in these dwellings divided by three. Fractional dwelling counts resulting from this calculation shall be rounded up to the next whole number, e.g. a total of seven bedrooms counts as three dwellings.

(d) Dwelling counts shall be recalculated as part of the City’s consideration of any new development proposing to increase the number of dwellings or bedrooms on a lot. The proposed change shall not be permitted unless the new dwelling count will comply with all applicable standards in this section.

(e) In addition to the Maximum Dwellings Per Lot allowed by Table 9.3625, one additional dwelling may be established on a lot that is between 9,000 square feet and 12,499 square feet, and up to two additional dwellings may be established on a lot that is 13,500 square feet or larger, so long as:

1. No residential building on the lot has more than two dwellings;
2. No dwelling on the lot has more than three bedrooms; and
3. No dwelling added to the lot after December 14, 2009, or that is on a lot that has more than the number of dwellings allowed on the lot by Table 9.3625 has more than 800 square feet of living area or any point (other than chimney) higher than 18 feet.

W. 7th Ave.

(f)   Multi-lot developments. A multi-lot development site is treated as one area for calculating allowable dwellings. (I.e., allowable dwellings are not the sum of individual lots’ allowable dwellings). A multi-lot development site cannot include an alley access only
lot or a lot less than 4,500 square feet.

 

MOTION 4 – Area covered by the motion

For more information on HB 2001, visit:

HB2001

Is the Proposed MAT Clinic Location on W. 11th allowed under the Metro Plan, the Westside Neighborhood Plan, and Existing Zoning? Perhaps not. Analysis.

Point of clarification: the issues raised here have nothing to do with the placement of the MAT Clinic in the JWN, the need for expanded services, or the effectiveness of the program. There is a compelling need that we support. However, the city rightly demands that all land use conforms to existing code and land use rules and in order for their to be equity among all developments, everyone must follow the rules. The JWN Executive Board would be in dereliction of its duties if it let certain projects slide because they would be, in our estimation, beneficial. That is not our call.

NOTE: The County MAT Team is presenting their plan and answering questions at the December 17 JWN Executive Board Meeting. The presentation starts at 7pm @ the McNail-Riley House at the corner of Jefferson and W. 13th.

[Analysis provided by Paul Conte, JWN Land Use Advisor]

Lane County Pursuing Methadone-Dispensing Clinic in JWN

Lane County Health and Human Services (HHS) Department is pursuing acquisition of the former Jones Roth building on the southwest corner of W. 11^th Ave. and Lawrence St. to operate a Methadone-dispensing clinic. (Tax map and lot: 17-03-31-31 00100) This site is within the boundaries of the Jefferson Westside Neighbors. There is housing adjacent to the south and west sides of the site and commercial uses, including the Downtown Liquor Store, across the streets to the north and east.

The site’s base zone is “C-2 Community Commercial,” and the “/SR Site Review” overlay zone also applies. The Metro Plan designation is “Medium Density Residential” (MDR). The Westside Neighborhood Plan (WNP) applicable policies for the “East Residential/Mixed Use Area” that encompasses the site include:

Although the site is unambiguously designated for “medium-density residential” development in both the Metro Plan and WNP, the Metro Plan allows “Neighborhood Commercial Centers” to be located in areas designated residential. The Metro Plan defines both “Neighborhood Commercial Centers” and “Community Commercial Centers.” Community Commercial Centers are allowed only on sites that are explicitly designated as “Commercial” on the Metro Plan Diagram, which the subject site is not.

Eugene’s Land Use Code includes the “C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zone,” which implements the Metro Plan’s Neighborhood Commercial Center and the “C-2 Community Commercial Zone,” which implements the Metro Plan’s Community Commercial Center. It thus appears that the C-2 zoning conflicts with the Metro Plan, and that the C-1 zone is the only commercial zone that would conform to the Metro Plan’s “Residential” designation.

The C-1 zone does not allow a “Non-residential drug treatment clinic”; whereas the C-2 zone does allow a drug treatment clinic. Because only the C-1 zone conforms to the Metro Plan, a drug treatment clinic would not conform to the Metro Plan.

The Oregon Supreme Court in Baker v. City of Milwaukie (21 OR 500 (1975)) stated:

“Likewise, the City of Milwaukie, upon adopting a comprehensive plan, had a duty to implement that plan through the enactment of zoning ordinances in accordance therewith.

***

In summary, we conclude that a comprehensive plan is the controlling land use planning instrument for a city. Upon passage of a comprehensive plan a city assumes a responsibility to effectuate that plan and conform prior conflicting zoning ordinances to it. We further hold that the zoning decisions of a city must be in accord with that plan and a zoning ordinance which allows a more intensive use than that prescribed in the plan must fail.”

Because C-2 allows “more intensive uses” than the C-1 zone, including drug treatment clinics, the Supreme Court decision prohibits the City from permitting a drug treatment clinic on the proposed site because the site’s plan designation, as implemented by the C-1 zone, does not allow such use.

The /SR overlay zone also imposes several requirements, including that a proposed use comply with “any additional specific factors applied at the time the /SR designation was applied.” (See Eugene Code 9.8440(7)). Those factors, if any, would also need to be determined if Lane County were to submit the required “Site Review” application to allow a drug treatment clinic.