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

Home Browse Search

was whether one would allow the property owner the flexibility to build one home on land that he or she had purchased. He underscored that there was no minimum density requirement in R-1 zoning so a single-family home in place of a four-plex would not violate a density requirement. Mr. Nystrom stated that the next question dealt with one of the three items identified to potentially eliminate, the code that addressed rowhouse lots. He explained that in the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) the provision for rowhouses to be part of the R-1 list of housing types that was acceptable but no corresponding reduced lot width had been addressed. This left a standard lot on which it was impossible to build a rowhouse. He said the amendment attempted to correct what appeared to be an oversight from the previous action. Continuing, Mr. Nystrom noted that the next question, regarding an amendment that sought to clarify that an exception to the maximum lot size could be granted to protect natural resources, had also been raised by Councilor Kelly. He averred that there were tools available through the review process that were part of the normal application process. He thought one thing that could be offered would be to link this exception back to the criteria that was already embedded in the parent applications that provide that protection and by doing that one could ensure that these protections were in place for the long term. Mr. Nystrom read the next question, which had to do with the open space requirement for R-2 zoning. He said the question was whether amending the code would allow someone to provide “hardscape” and no landscaping in R-2 and the answer was no. He indicated that both a landscape and an open space requirement would be triggered. Mr. Nystrom stated that the next question had to do with a requirement under street connectivity standards for 600 foot block lengths. He added that this had been added as part of LUCU to ensure a good solid network of streets with regular intersections. He noted that it also helped in terms of pedestrian and bicycle accessibility. He said the question asked if allowing flexibility in this would compromise the code requirements. He stressed that the flexibility being considered had to do with some subdivisions that were presented with geometric challenges when designing streets. Mr. Nystrom said the intent of the amendment would be to allow a small amount of variation from the standard as long as all of the other objectives had been met. He observed that some of the concern pertained to whether other amenities such as bicycle and pedestrian access would be compromised. He stated that the requirements for those amenities would not be disregarded because they were ensured by other criteria that were part of the same application review. He thought if the language could be “beefed up” to tie that link better it would address councilors’ concerns. Regarding the adjustment review process for street connectivity, Mr. Nystrom said at present the code allowed for certain adjustments to the street connectivity standards, having to do with whether or not streets had to be provided to neighboring properties or whether they had to connect to existing streets that may stub to the subject property. He said it was suggested to take the same adjustment process and move it into the land use application process. He stressed that while it would be called a different process, the criteria would remain the same and the process for review would remain unchanged. Regarding the amendment to Section 9.7885, Mr. Nystrom explained that there was an agreement adopted many years ago that involved council action and the City Manager’s approval between a coalition of industrial owners and the City. The contract exempted the industrial corridor from required annexations. He underscored that the amendment sought to make sure the agreement and a figure that is represented in the MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 8 Regular Session