Item 9: Ordinance on Minor Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT D the policies and the context of the policies as they were written in the refinement plan, which can account for the unique nature of individual neighborhoods. However, the definition can provide direction in interpreting the meaning and application of such policies. 5.Provide language for the neighborhood/applicant meeting amendment that requires that the application submitted to the city substantially resembles the project presented at the meeting. The City Attorney’s office is preparing amendment language to require that the application submitted to the City be in substantial conformance with the project presented to the neighbors at the neighborhood/applicant meeting. That amendment language will be a part of the amended ordinance coming forward for action. 6.Regarding the proposed residential density calculations, is there a way to make those applicable to infill and not new development? The amendment regarding residential density calculations was suggested by the community as a means of addressing neighborhood concerns about increased density in infill situations. For many of the close in established neighborhoods, the vast majority of lots or development sites are less than 13,500 square feet in area. For these lots, which is where much of the infill occurs, this amendment would require maximum density to be rounded up to the next whole number for fractions of .75 or above and rounded down for fractions below .75, as opposed to the current round up provision that applies to all lots, regardless of size. While the amendment would retain the round up provision for lots or development sites 13,500 square feet or greater in area, lots of this size are typically “greenfield” or vacant undeveloped sites. As a result, there is more flexibility in distributing density in manner that does not negatively impact an established neighborhood. Using density and lot size as a basis is a more consistent tool than land divisions, as density is applied at the time of building permit for any new dwelling. The proposed amendment has strong neighborhood support and staff believes that the proposed language addresses neighborhoods concerns. 7.How many of the proposed minor code amendments were suggested by city residents v. non residents ? The vast majority of those involved in the minor code amendment project are city residents. Two of the 18 proposed amendments (#8 and #12) were suggested by residents who live within the urban growth boundary, but outside of the City limits. Both amendments received broad support from neighborhoods comprised of city residents, and were selected as priorities by community members and the Planning Commission for inclusion in this project. The remaining 16 amendments were suggested by city residents and the City Council. 8.Clarify the impact of changing amendment #1 related to the number of allowable dogs within the city residence. This amendment would change the definition of “kennel” and the definition of “noncommercial dog kennel” to keeping four or more dogs on the premises, thereby allowing up to three dogs on residential and commercial properties. At their public hearing, the Planning Commission heard testimony from several individuals who suggested that the proposal be revised to allow for the keeping of foster dogs or other dogs on a temporary basis, such as following the death of family member or friend, especially given the current uncertainty around funding of the Lane County Animal Regulation Authority. Based 3