CC Minutes - 10/12/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

commission believed were minor in nature. That resulted in some amendments being dropped from consideration. Staff was present to ask the council to do a similar review in regard to the scope of the proposed amendments. Mr. Nystrom called the council’s attention to a synopsis of the amendments. Mr. Poling called for a first round of comments and questions. Ms. Taylor did not think the code amendments represented housekeeping and did not think the council had adequate time for review of the amendments. She referred to item 8 and asked why staff proposed to allow RV sales in a C-2 zone as a permitted use. Mr. Nystrom said that currently, such uses required a conditional use permit (CUP). All other auto-related uses such as auto sales, motorcycle sales, and gasoline stations were uses permitted outright. Staff believed that treating auto-related uses similarly made sense. In addition, an RV use had recently gone through the CUP process, and staff found it was a difficult process to match to the request. Ms. Taylor suggested that all auto-related uses should require a CUP. Ms. Taylor referred to item 25 and asked why staff recommended that special standards for duplexes, triplexes, and four-plexes would apply to R-1 zones. Mr. Nystrom noted that the section had been in place for many years prior to the Land Use Code Update. It was an opportunity to allow for a mixture of housing types in R-1 neighborhoods in larger projects. The uses were already outright uses in the other residential zones, assuming one could meet density requirements and other standards. The amendment attempted to make it clear that the code section addressed R-1 zoning and that a developer could use the lot for a single- family house. Ms. Taylor referred to item 26 and asked why staff proposed to eliminate the screening for flag lots. Mr. Nystrom recalled that amendments adopted through the Land Use Code Update eliminated the requirement, which remained in the purpose statement, had no effect, and could be confusing to the reader. Ms. Taylor thought the City should have such a screening requirement. Ms. Taylor referred to item 61 and averred it was not a good idea to allow a landscape architect rather than an arborist to provide a tree report. Mr. Nystrom suggested that the issue was situational depending on the project. Staff was attempting to allow some flexibility. Staff would still encourage arborists to be involved in complex projects in the south hills, for example. Ms. Taylor recalled that the Lane County Home Builders supported the change, and she did not think it was a good idea. Ms. Taylor referred to item 68 and asked why the City would require reports for transportation demand management (TDM) plans that requested adjustments to maximum parking requirements. Mr. Nystrom said that the section gave the City more authority to require such reports. He clarified that there were two adjustments a developer could seek, one for minimum parking and one for maximum parking. There was no requirement for an annual report to allow the City to track the exceptions. Also referring to item 61, Mr. Kelly said he liked how staff interpreted the section said, but he did not think it was reflected in the code language. He would prefer it if staff was specific about what projects required an arborist. Mr. Kelly noted that the council processed at least two packages of minor code amendments following the adoption of the Land Use Code. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2005 Page 7 Work Session