Laserfiche WebLink
<br />9.2760 <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />9.27~. <br />lCitJ <br /> <br />9.2761(6) <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />9.2775(1) <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />9.2795(3)(a) <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />Table <br />9.3910 <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />9.4730(3); <br />9.4830(2,b) <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />13,500 sq. ft. tnaximum lot size <br />requirement for R -1 lots <br /> <br />Exceptions to maximum lot size <br /> <br />Special standards for <br />establishing duplex, triplex and <br />fourplex lots in subdivisions <br /> <br />Purpose statement regarding <br />flag lots <br /> <br />Exemption from Solar Setback <br />requirement: Lots having 20% <br />slope and generally north facing <br /> <br />Residential Day Care, 3-12 <br />persons served in Whiteaker <br />Special Area Zone <br /> <br />Site review required for <br />wetland restoration projects <br />approved by West Eugene <br />Wetland Mitigation Bank team <br /> <br />Standard intended to encourage <br />infiU in R-l by limiting new <br />parcels to 13,500 sq. ft. <br />Currently applies to existing <br />parcels as well. Could prohibit <br />2 existing lots over 13,500 sq. <br />ft. from adjusting a common <br />property line. <br />Current exceptions do not <br />clearly allow waiver of the <br />maximum lot size based on <br />natural resource protection. <br />Provision is intended as an <br />exception for R-110ts only, but <br />the code implies it affects <br />multi-family zones too. Multi- <br />family zones already allow <br />duplex, triplex and fourplex <br />units. <br />Purpose statement references <br />old code provision regarding <br />screening along flag lot <br />driveway, however the <br />requirement for screening was <br />eliminated in LUCU update. <br />Intended to exempt parcels on <br />steep slopes (>20%) which <br />won't cast significant shadows <br />on adjoining lots. Code <br />incorrectly references south <br />facing lots. <br />Table lists day care for 3-12 <br />persons, but does not specify if <br />use is allowed. Table does list <br />day care for over 12 persons as <br />permitted, thereby supporting <br />the intent that less than 12 <br />persons should also be allowed. <br />Site Review process provides <br />no additional benefit as wetland <br />restoration projects are subject <br />to extensive review and <br />requirements at State and <br />Federal level far exceed local <br />site review provisions. Projects <br />have been limited to city <br />restoration projects. <br /> <br />Revise language such that the <br />R-1 maximum lot standard <br />applies to land divisions only <br />(subdivisions, partitions). <br /> <br />Clarify that an exception to <br />maximum lot size can be <br />granted in order to protect <br />natural resources. <br />Specify that this code section <br />only applies to subdivisions in <br />R-l zones. <br /> <br />Eliminate screening language <br />consistent with current flag lot <br />proVlslOns. <br /> <br />Correct the compass reference <br />error by referring to north <br />facing lots regarding <br />exemption. <br /> <br />Add an "8" in the permitted <br />column to clarify that this use is <br />allowed if specific standards are <br />met. <br /> <br />Eliminate requirement for site <br />review for wetland restoration <br />projects approved hy the <br />Mitigation Bank team within <br />the IWB and IWP overlay <br />zones. Would affect future city <br />restoration projects. <br />