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

Home Browse Search

the proposed language was too restrictive. Mr. Sullivan said if parking was the issue, downtown was a parking exempt zone, and questioned how the code would be interpreted for downtown businesses. · In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. McKerrow said the current code language was not clear on the definition oftemporary use. Mr. McKerrow said that special events rather than an accessory use would be the standard under which the code would be interpreted, noting that enforcement of this would be complaint based. · Ms. Colbath stated that proposed changes to EC 9.5800(5)(b) shoul<lat be included in the list as the language was very clear. Mr. Nystrom said because the code ~ua~was ambiguous, a lib- eral interpretation could allow for virtually constant temporary...., · Ms. Levis proposed flagging this issue for the City Counci1.,#a J~nt that three times annu- ally was the maximum number of events permitted. She sdijested tJiHi 'lle Chamber of Com- merce may want to ask retailers to provide feedback (l~is jjtpposed c~. In a straw poll, the commission voted 7:0 to forward the suggestion toJleCit)rCouncil that h. nncil take a more in-depth look at this issue, noting that the co~n had ~ consensus on Ii~any...times a year temporary uses in commercial zones wey- Dfopriat~ _ - ~ ~--~ F EC 9.6105(4) table ~... "!" EC 9.6410 (table) ;".. ~ · Mr. Hudspeth asked for clarificatiolf"f;! the difference betwltH long term and short term bicycle parking. Mr. McKerrow said long teI'~lui was intended~oyees, and included safety features such as lighting and enclosed Sl!ces. . ~ I t tp,rm parkin~enerally consisted of a bicy- cle rack, was intended for customers, anaa.equir~li' I 1 ....at~iiear the main entrance of bus i- nesses. Mr. McKerro~ the code curr~#d not It;*- signage to distinguish between employee and CUS1lJ:lltI P:~g. Mr. HudsJlh asked if aIj employer feedback had been re- ceived in sUPP<ST opposi'fiiito the propos,"language, and expressed concern that providing secure bicyck ~ couldiia burden to so~sinesses. ~ is. ... . -.-.... --.... , - -- EC 9.6610(1) . . -::.::- . -- . M~~_.li~l~ssed cljlll1l11 fI that thls~sion would clarify that election dates in other Fties do no"Riii'Qr for ~mption. .... ~ ~.. ~ ....-. -.-... ..... - -- ~ -.-.~. EC 9:67U'. --- , Y . In rClIl'Anse to Ms. Coli., Mr. Nystrom said the proposed change in the code language was inten~onform to pges in the federal law, which the city was required to adhere to. - - - - - - - - ~ ;Ms. Colbath, seconded by Mr. Hledik moved to recommend to the City _-Council to approve the draft ordinance amending Chapter 9 of the T Eugene Code dated August 26,2005, as amended, with clarifications . discussed at the September 12, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Muir thanked the Planning Commissioners for their work on the minor land use code amendments. Ms. Levis said staff did a very good job on developing the language and explaining it to commissioners. MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 12,2005 Page 4