Item 4: Public Hearing on Ordinance on Minor Land Use Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

the Chamber's review of amendments applicable to commercial zones raised no objections or concerns about unintended consequences. He was pleased to see an amendment that clarified that the C-I limitation on 5,000 square feet on businesses applied to new buildings rather than an existing site, as well as the amendment that exempted loading docks on commercial buildings from the window requirements. He said that the exemption of outdoor restaurant seating from off-street parking requirements was another example of the practical and sensible nature of the amendments. He said when improvements to the City's Land Use Code were considered, the commission should keep in mind that the code should enable good things to happen in the community. Jim Welsh, 2139 Centennial Plaza, Eugene, representing the Eugene Association of Realtors, stated he was pleased to note that their association had no conflict with the proposed amendments. He observed that the amendments were common sense, clarified code intent, reduced conflicts, eliminated redun- dancy, and improved consistency in the code. He thanked staff for initiating the process to consider Land Use Code amendments and thanked the commission for reviewing each of the proposed amendments and determining whether they were minor or involved a larger policy discussion. He said that Phase I amendments represented significant work by the commission and staff, the work was good, and the results would undoubtedly provide a more efficient and effective planning process that would save the private and public sectors time and money. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Home Builders Association of Lane County, supported the minor amendments proposed by staff. She said there were no objections to the amendments and many of them were welcome changes. She commented that while none of the amendments reflected policy changes, sometimes simple things could make a difference. She said that the proposed amendment to EC9.2761(5)(d) to provide for an additional exception to lot size to allow for natural resources should be clear that more than just Goal 5 resources was intended, such as upland trees. ) Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eugene, requested that the record remain open for an additional seven days for submission of written testimony because of the substantial number of items that were being considered. He indicated that the Neighborhood Leaders Council might wish to comment on the amendments. He expressed some concerns about on-site pedestrian circulation being included for adjustment review, as well as the connectivity issue, which was a controversial subject in some neighborhoods. He said there were several other issues he needed more time to research, including a new definition for curve lots that was confusing with respect to measuring the width of wedge or pie-shaped lots. He said holding the record open for an additional seven days would serve the public's interest. Mr. Lawless asked staff what impact there would be to holding the record open an additional seven days. Mr. Nystrom replied that it was a City-initiated legislative matter and there was no deadline to be concerned about nor was there an obligation to extend the record. He mentioned that public outreach throughout the amendment process had drawn limited response from the public, neighborhood groups, the development community and other groups. Mr. Lawless pointed out that the commission would be making a recommendation to the City Council, which would also hold hearings on the matter. Mr. Belcher asked if the commission's deliberations could begin while the record was open. Planning Director Susan Muir replied that the commission could discuss the amendments but no action could be taken. MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission Public Hearing May 17,2005 Page 2