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

Home Browse Search

code match. He noted that the current figure included some properties along Airport Road that should not be part of this corridor. Councilor Bettman asked how boundaries would be changed. Mr. Nystrom believed it would come back to the council for review. Mr. Nystrom said the last concern expressed by Councilor Bettman was with Section 9.8055(1) which had to do with Cluster Subdivision provisions. He stated that currently there were provisions to relax certain lot standards in order to encourage better clustering of housing. He indicated that the proposal to amend the provision sought to eliminate some redundant references to criteria dealing with lot standards, street standards, and others. He stressed that this amendment would not change how cluster subdivisions were managed. Councilor Kelly noted that the Planning Commission flagged Home Occupation Standards and Home Occupation requirements, Section 9.5350, for further discussion. He noted that the proposed amendment dropped the reference to residential zones so that the standards applied in all zones. He questioned why the City wanted to impose the standards in a commercial zone, as an example. Mr. Nystrom replied that the amendment would allow Planning Division staff to treat someone in an apartment complex in a C-2 zone that wanted to do a home occupation the same as someone who pursued a home occupation in a residential zone. Councilor Kelly expressed interest in further discussion on the portion of the amendment that clarified another part of the code which said one could not have a home occupation on a flag lot. He said his initial impulse would be to consider this in a larger discussion. He did not readily see why a home occupation would have more impact on a flag lot than in a front lot. He acknowledged that the amendment before the council sought to make the code consistent. Councilor Kelly averred that the council worked a lot on the block length standard during the LUCU adoption. He recognized that the amendment sought to make the standard more flexible. He noted that the code language said if the traffic flow that a street provided was on an overall basis providing good traffic flow an adjustment or exception could be granted. He wanted the current code to convey the sense that the allowable change to street length was only “slightly greater than 600 feet.” Councilor Bettman indicated that she would not go through and address each amendment she took issue with and how it could be improved or whether it should be removed. She said she would do this in an email after she received Mr. Nystrom’s memorandum with a more expansive discussion of them. However, she noted one concern she had expressed regarding the amendment to Section 9.6420(3)(f)(l) had remained unaddressed in the current discussion. Mr. Nystrom explained that this dealt with a situation in which landscaping was required on the interior property line of a parking structure. He said, though not many parking structure requests were made, a C-2 or C-3 zoned area with a parking structure on the interior side typically had buildings close to the property lines and often with solid walls to the outside because of fire rating issues. He stated that it was uncertain as to whether it made sense to have landscaping in an area with buildings in proximity to each other. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 9 Regular Session