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

Home Browse Search

EC 9.0500 · In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Nystrom said the proposed language allowed for certain types of conifers to be included as allowable types of canopy trees. He said the current definition prohib- ited all conifers. · In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. McKerrow said the change would allow Ponderosa Pine and Douglas-fir trees to be used. - - - - Table 9.2170 ~.., EC 9.2171(5)(c) A. · In response to Mr. Lawless, Mr. Nystrom said this was inte~ tt'Jt!1..!n a gap between the current code language for C-l and C-2. He added 60 perc'- wasndi"imf~ntific, but rather a rea- sonable option. Mr. Nystrom affirmed Mr. Lawless' 5l~f&nn~ that fl~;~ pedestrian amenities still applied. .4fJff'" ' -=- I' ----. _ - - EC2761(5) ~..~. ... A · In response to Mr. Lawless, Mr. Nystrom repiied dl~ll~ ~~e e~tv.n to maximum.Jffi size would be granted through the adjustment review process. ~ '" . - - :..... ~ EC9.5350 -. . _ · Mr. Lawless stated this change was irlilill~d lJ~the City Coun~ "-result of concerns about parking for home occupations on flag l5!i. 111. I rlid not peri'iiPhome occupations on flag lots. Mr. Nystrom affirmed Mr. Lawles~tate~. Jloi~ c.J was very explicit with this, as well as many other st::tn.d.arc1s related to fl~~nd tha~ajustments or variances were al- lowable. Mr. La~~ "'. 1 j;jled frustratioriKat such a bliiiket statement would assume that every home bu~s woul~rate a signifi\nt amount of traffic, noting that many types of home busineC5'e~ - 'ld not g'iJ;rate any traffi~ · Ms. Colbath said s1iiiias a~f a half-way lj\iSe that provided housing for twelve residents and a da" r"'r~ center Oi.:b. llIii~ . 1 ~ 1fthese types of home occupations would be pro- hi~ "'11 ulillllb.under. o~o~ed statmar~s. Mr. Nystrom explained tha~ federal and state I.aS'S addresse~ unIt (fiiiiptions. He saId the examples Ms. Colbath cIted would not be _~ ,sidered home Ou tions,~ld typically require conditional use permits. .. ~lbath asked if"lfiip.esses j1Et did not generate traffic, such as accounting firms, were pro~ under the cdii Mr. Nystrom said the City Council wanted a tight regulation on non- reside~ 'se on flag III. Mr. McKerrow stated that response to this type of code violation was complain~. if · Ms. Levis SUg te~ the Planning Commission advise the City Council that the council needed to more 'IFOughly review issues related to flag lots that could not be addressed in the minor code fixeij5rocess. In a straw poll, the commission voted 6:1, with Mr. Belcher abstain- ing,.to forward that suggestion to the City Council. EC 9.5800(5)(b) · Mr. Hledik questioned why limitations should be placed on temporary uses in commercial zones. Mr. McKerrow explained the current language could allow a continuous parking lot sale, adding that typical parking lot events used parking spaces. The City Council intent was to allow for spe- cial events but not continuous events, noting that the proposed code language of allowing three special events annually met the comments and intent of the City Council. Mr. Hledik stated that MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 12,2005 Page 3