Item 3: Action - Minor Land Use Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

provide safe, convenient, and direct circulation for pedestrkms, bicyclists, and emergeoc;y vehicles]. (8m As part of a Type II or Type 1/1 process, an exception [adjustment] may be granted to the requirements of (1 >..m and (4l) of this section if [consistent with the criterio for adjustment of EC 9.8030(12)(b) of this land use code] because of the existence of one or more of the fol/owing conditions: (a) Physical conditions. preclude development of the connecting street. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, topography or likely impact to natural resource areas such as wetlands, ponds, streams, channels, rivers, lakes or upland wildlife habitat area, or a resource on the National Wetland Inventory or under protection by state or federal law. (b) Buildings or other existing development on the subject property or adjacent lands, including previously subdivided but vacant lots or parcels. physically preClude a connection now or in the future, considering the potential for redevelopment. With regard to the change in subsection (5), staffhad concern that the statement "requiring" access ways read as im absolute, Given the fact that such a requirement could only be implemented if consistent with constitutional requirements (e.g. Dolanfindings). sttifJwas concerned that the statement did not reflect the necessary legal limitations, The current language also appears to conflict with that in Section 9.6805, Dedication of Public Ways, which states that the """ The City may require dedication of public waysfor bicycle, pedestrian use... ". Publie Testimony Following the close of the public hearing on October 24,2005, the Councilleft the record open for one week to allow the submittal of additional public testimony, Staff received 2 pieces of testimony (Kevin Matthews, Friends of Eugene and Charles Biggs) which are included in the November 28,2005 Council packet. To the extent possible, staff has provided a response to this testimony, Each statement will highlight the concern identified in the testimony, followed by staff's response, #2 - 9.5000; Curved lot definition. Testimony asserts that changing the definition could allow new development. Response: The code c.:urrently allows curved lots (lots on curved streets) with reduced lot frontage with no definition of what constitutes a curve, Proposed language lvould ensure that only those lots on "legitimate" curves would be eligible, #3 - 9.5000, Development Site definition. Revised definition would include lots separated by a street under the same ownership. Testimony expressed concern about the impact on fees and site-specific issues being diluted in larger applications. Response: The revised definition would ensure that a land use application is reviewed comprehensively. Under the current rules, the city cannot require, or even allow, an application and review process ~f the project happens to be separated by a street which was originally created through a land division. As an example) {f the streets bisecting the Faith Center site (Polk Street) had been created through a land division, the recent Conditional Use Permit/or their expansion would have required 3 separate CUP's, each dealing with only a portion of the actual expansion concept. Staff believes the proposed change benefits all parties by ensuring a comprehensive public process. Page 4 of7