CC Minutes - 10/24/05 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Nystrom said the first question had to do with the definition of a legal lot and the lot of record. He stated that the proposed amendment would change one word which would get at when a legal lot was considered established. He related that the current provision indicated that this was when the lot or deed was recorded. He said over the years, many situations had arisen wherein an individual transferred a deed and had not recorded it; a new owner then had a problem finding when the date of transfer occurred. He indicated that legal staff would look into the question, but if there was a great degree of concern the amendment should be eliminated. Councilor Bettman asked that this amendment be added to the list to postpone because it could mean the difference between a viable or non-viable Ballot Measure 37 claim. Mr. Nystrom referred to her second question, which referred to the same amendment Councilor Kelly brought up that would allow recreational vehicle sales in areas zoned C-2. He noted that Councilor Bettman’s concern revolved around the downtown areas that were zoned C-2. He said the amendment was procedural, whether to allow as an outright use or to subject this type of business to the conditional use permit (CUP) process when no other auto-related uses were required to apply for a CUP. Councilor Bettman averred that there was a fine line between permitted uses and conditional uses and that the CUP application included a public process. Councilor Bettman asked staff to speak to the amendment proposed for 9.2683(2) which sought to clarify language so that projects requiring a CUP would not also be subject to site review. Mike McKerrow, supervisor of the Land Use Management section of the PDD, explained that the intent of the amendment was to simplify the land use matrixes. He said the previous code had the listing of transportation and freight yards and terminals. He related that as staff looked at similar operational characteristics, the use of building contractor storage yards seemed to have some of the same operational characteristics. He stated that it was not an obvious use and had been removed from the draft. He said staff recommended adding this back so that the use would continue to be allowed in land zoned I-2 and I-3. Councilor Bettman asked if this would allow trucking terminals in the railroad yards near the Trainsong Neighborhood and the River Road neighborhood and where this would specifically crop up. Mr. Nystrom replied that the rail yard was not currently zoned so there would be no allowed uses other than railroad uses. He underscored that this would only apply to the I-2 and I-3 zones. Mayor Piercy suggested that staff go down the list of questions Councilor Bettman wished to have answered. Mr. Nystrom said the next question was similar to Councilor Kelly’s question on the duplex, triplex and four-plex units. He stated that in a single-family neighborhood one is normally allowed to have single- family lots but there was a provision that allowed for some higher density to happen through the subdivision process. He underscored that this had been in place in the code for many years. He said what was unclear was how to handle a lot that was platted for a triplex in an area that was zoned R-1, and on which a triplex was never built, when it was sold to someone else who wished to build a single-family dwelling. He explained that this raised the question of whether the person was bound to build the triplex because it was recorded as a triplex on the plat or were allowed to build that single-family dwelling. He agreed that Councilor Bettman had identified a loophole as potentially someone could plan to build a four-plex and a four-plex lot exceeded the maximum lot size for a single-family home. He said the main question, however, MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 7 Regular Session