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

Home Browse Search

Ms. Colbath, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to leave the record open until May 24, 2005, at 5 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Lawless closed the public hearing and called for discussion by the commission. He suggested that the commission review each page ofthe matrix and identify items they wished to discuss further. EC 9.0500. Lot width and vision clearance area defmitions Mr. Lawless asked about the lot width measurement concerns raised by Mr. Biggs. Mr. Nystrom replied that the defmition provided was a fairly universal definition used by many communities and was geared toward using side yards that were generally opposing as the starting point and could be applied to oddly- shaped lots. He cautioned that the definition should not be complicated with additional qualifying language as the purpose of the amendments was to simplify the code. Mr. Lawless asked if the interpretation or methodology for applying the definition would be available to an applicant. Mr. Nystrom said that the proposed definition had not Yet been used in Eugene so there Was no track record and it was likely that scenarios would arise that did not match exactly with the definition and interpretations would be necessary. Mr. Belcher commented that the issue was whether the proposed definition was better than the existing one, not did it cover every possible exigency. Be 9.0500. Development site definition Ms. Colbath remarked that the amendment might not be a change in policy, but there were many ownership scenarios and since she did not know how extensively the definition was used in the code she was not certain how comprehensive the change would be. She agreed that it was a good idea to be able to evaluate more potential properties but had questions about whether the consequences of the amend- ment. Mr. Nystrom replied that the multiple ownership issue already existed in code language. He said there were two spectrums being addressed by the amendment and the development site questions was raised frequently in many different situations such as permits and land use applications. He said the old code defmition would prevent consideration as one development site unless the parcels were bisected by a street that was not done through a subdivision. He used the Faith Center conditional use permit (CUP) as an example of a project with multiple tax lots under common ownership that was bisected by two streets that fortunately qualified under the old definition, but that was a rare situation and staff wanted to avoid having a project with one master plan and multiple CUPs. He said the purpose was to be able to look at a project holistically. . Mr. Nystrom said another reason for the amendment Was to address day-to-day situations that arose. He said the current defmition allowed areas under common ownership to be considered one development site for building permit purposes with related uses and supporting parking, but staff did not want to have one building permit create the need to look at all contiguous property, such as might occur in the downtown area. He indicated the amendment was intended to capture both ends of the spectrum. Ms. Colbath asked if the proposed amendment would affect the ability to consider the traffic impacts of proposed development sites bisected by streets. Mr. Nystrom said the amendment would provide more ability to consider the project's traffic impact comprehensively. MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission Public Hearing May 17,2005 Page 3