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

Home Browse Search

, . ./"" ) Mr. Belcher asked if several contiguous lots across several contiguous streets were Under common ownership would it be possible for the owner to develop a property on own end of that spectrum of contiguous streets and provide the parking several blocks away. Mr. Nystrom said the code already contained provisions for off-site parking, but the amendment would allow consideration of a redevelop- ment plan more comprehensively instead of by individual tax lot. He used the development at 29th Avenue and Willamette Street as a site where several parcels were under common ownership and other were under separate ownership to illustrate that the City could not mandate that the different property oWners work together under one umbrella. Mr. Lawless concurred with the ability to combine resources into larger master planned developments and look at larger sites more holistically. Mr. Nystrom said that the material change related primarily to the issue of parcels bisected by a street; the issues of contiguous property and common ownership already existed in the code. Mr. Belcher asked ifthere was any advantage to establishing a limit on the size ofthe development site. Mr. Nystrom responded that there was little benefit to establishing an arbitrary limitation and the size of the site was very different from one geographic area to another. EC 9.2161(1). C-2limitation of 5.000 square feet of floor area Mr. Belcher asked if the amendment would allow for expansion of a use that was larger than 5,000 square feet or just make it an existing allowable use. Mr. Nystrom replied that the amendment would allow occupancy of the existing space but not permit expansion. He said the intent was always to apply the 5,000 square foot limitation on new development, not impose it on existing tenant spaces and the amendment clarified that intent. EC9.2760 (table). R-l rowhouse lots In respQnse to comments from Mr. Lawless, Mr. Nystrom said the amendment began with the R-l zone's 50-foot wide minimum for rowhouse lots, which was a mistake. He said the standard in other zoning districts was 20 feet and the commission asked staff to determine whether that was adequate in the R-l zone. He said staff determined that in communities with more rowhouse development, 18 feet was a common width and the question before the commission was whether that was acceptable and should be applied across other zoning districts as well. Mr. Lawless encouraged the width to be set as low as practical, such as 15 feet, to avoid requiring adjustment reviews. EC 9.2795(3)(a). Exemption from Solar Setback requirement Ms. Colbath noted that staff had modified the amendment pursuant to concerns raised by the commission and asked if other changes were anticipated. Mr. Nystrom replied that the other issue related to steep sloped areas and how properties were held to the Solar Setback requirements given that exception processes currently existed. He said the amendment could remain on the list of possible amendments in the second phase but staff would not push for it. EC 9.6610(1). Time period for election sign exemption MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission Public Hearing May 17,2005 Page 4