My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11.14.2023 PC Agenda
>
OnTrack
>
MA
>
2023
>
MA 23-5
>
11.14.2023 PC Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/9/2023 4:00:26 PM
Creation date
11/8/2023 12:45:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
MA
File Year
23
File Sequence Number
5
Application Name
River Road-Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan
Document Type
Staff Report
Document_Date
11/14/2023
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
the overall goals of activated, pedestrian -oriented commercial development. <br />One example is the corner plaza at Amazon Corner Apartments in Eugene. <br />There are examples of commercial courts in Portland that have been successful <br />on busier streets. <br />c) Flexibility in the setback requirement could allow elements such as porches in <br />both the COR -MU and COR -RES to extend into the setback, possibly making <br />these desirable elements feasible on constrained sites (see Site Testing I Small <br />Site). <br />2. Side yard setbacks listed in Table 9.3865 are generally reasonable. The analysis of the <br />Medium Site, however, demonstrates conditions where the setback could be smaller to <br />accommodate more desirable types of development. For example, the 10 foot side yard <br />transition from R-1 may be necessary as a building setback, but it is bigger than <br />necessary for parking. Larger landscaped setbacks can be harder to maintain and can <br />have unintended consequences. The Medium Site testing demonstrates a desirable <br />transition between R-1 and middle -housing scaled rowhouses. The 10 foot setback to <br />the driveway is not necessary here. <br />3. It is our experience that Building Articulation standards such as described in 9.3865 add <br />complexity to development but do not prevent bad design. They often work against the <br />stated goal of the code to promote "cohesive architecture that is visually appealing." We <br />recommend eliminating this section. <br />a) If it is retained, we recommend adding "recessed windows" to the list of design <br />features in 9.3865 (a). The most obvious problem with large expanses of <br />uninterrupted walls is that typical residential windows do not offer depth that <br />creates pleasing articulation and scale. With the shift toward more stringent <br />energy codes, buildings are being clad in exterior insulation, making recessed <br />windows more feasible. <br />b) Recessed covered entries should be allowed in addition to the additive cover <br />options described in 9.3865 (c). <br />Page 4 of 4 <br />Page 17 of 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.