Item 3: Action - Minor Land Use Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

. A'ITACliMENT E Planning & Development Planning MEMORANDUM City of Eugene 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541} 682-5377 (541) 682-5572 FAX www.eugene-or.Us Date: November 21, 2005 To: Mayor Piercy and City Council From: Steve Nystrom, Planning Division Subject: CA 04-4: Response to Council questions and public testimony regarding the minor land use code amendments The purpose of this memo is to respond to questions raised by the City Council at the October 24,2005 public hearing. In addition, staff has provided a response to testimony received following the public hearing, but before the close of the record on October 31, 2005. Citv Council Ouestions At the October 24, 2005 public hearing, the Council identified several proposed code amendments which warranted further discussion or response from staff. Although many of these items have been addressed in the e-mail response to Councilor's Rettman's questions (also attached), this memo provides responses to additional items raised at the hearing. These items are listed below with their respective reference number and code section citation. For those code sections proposed for revision (shO\vn below), the recommended edits are shO"wn as follows: . Deletions from 9/27/05 draft shown in held itRJic underline . Additions to 9/27/05 draft shown in Qf)(d italic double underline #5; EC9.0500: Legal lot defmition. The proposed change would base legal lot status on the date a deed was signed, rather than the date it was recorded. Concern was raised that this proposed change could affect future M37 claims, based on a recent claim filed with Lane County. Response: The City Attorney's office has evaluated the Lane County measure 37 claim that stl~ff believes the Council is rt;ferencing. The Board chose to con.<;ider, as evidence of the date of the claimant's ownership, an unrecorded land sale contract betweenfamily members. A deedfor the sale was recorded at a later date. Regardless of how EC Chapter 9 defines "legal lot, " the City At/Onley does not believe that the d4inition would have any conclusive effect on the Council's consideration of such a measure 37 claim since ownership is not dependent upon a recorde.d deed or the e:'!;istence of a legal lot. With respect to the concern that the revision could result in an increase in value, in the vast m({jority of cases. staff believes that it would provide some additionalflexibility but l-vould not increase the value of a lot. However, the change could arguably increase the value of a property for which no deed can be recorded. For that reason, council may wish to consider elimination of this amendment. #14; EC 9.2173(lO)(c): Exempt ground floor window requirement adjacent to loading docks. Concern was expressed that this exemption may be too broad for larger buildings, where the loading dock may occupy a limited portion of the wall in question. It was suggested that some limitation be considered. Page 1 of7