Laserfiche WebLink
March 10, 2003, an ordinance concerning the amendments to entertainment <br />and recreation uses, parking area landscaping standards and other <br />provisions of Chapter 9. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly thanked staff for its work in incorporating council direction into the proposed <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to amend the <br />corrected ordinance 5, Section 24, Provision 9.8030(14) to read: <br /> <br /> Overlay Zone Development Standards Adjustment. Where this land use <br />A <br />code provides that the applicable overlay zone standards may be adjusted, <br />the standards may be adjusted upon finding that both of the following are <br />met: <br />(a) The adjustment is necessary due to topography, natural features, <br />A <br />easements, and similar physical or legal constraints that preclude full <br />compliance. Self imposed conditions do not satisfy this criterion. <br />(b) The adjustment of the standards will result in a development that is <br />A <br />consistent with the purpose of the overlay. <br />@ <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman said the unadjusted wording removed the criteria for triggering adjustment <br />review and allowed adjustment review for any reason at all. She said the amended language still <br />provided a lot of flexibility but also gave predictability to the public regarding standards that had <br />been adopted through a sanctioned public process. She added that the amendment would help <br />cut down on staff time devoted to adjustment reviews. <br /> <br />é <br />In response to a question from Councilor Pap regarding staffs views on the amendment, Ms. <br />= <br />Bishow said the adjustment review process was an administrative decision by the planning <br />director but added that notice was provided to nearby property owners as well as tenants or <br />occupants that lived nearby. She said there was an opportunity for public comment, but noted <br />that such a request was not the type of land use application that went to a public heading except <br />on appeal. She acknowledged that staff had been devoting more time than anticipated to <br />adjustment reviews. <br /> <br />Planning Director Jan Childs cited the recent discussion of the Crescent nodal development, <br />where there was concern that the nodal development overlay zone required 30 residential units <br />per net acre rather than the 20 units that would be required in the base R-4 zoning district. She <br />said the council and the Board of County Commissioners had both asked for information on how <br />that number could be adjusted down while still meeting the goal of 12 units per net acre. She said <br />that particular piece of property was flat land and did not have topographic natural features, <br />easements, or similar physical or legal constraints that precluded full compliance. She said <br />Councilor Bettmans amendment would make it impossible to seek an adjustment to reduce the <br />= <br />density on that R-4 property. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Councilor Meisner regarding what was meant by self-imposed <br />constraints or conditions, Ms. Bishow said there were situations where a developer designed a <br />project and intentionally created a situation where it was not in compliance. <br /> <br />In response to a concern raised by Councilor Meisner that there would be constant legal <br />arguments and interpretations over self-imposed conditions, Ms. Bishow acknowledged that self- <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTESEugene City Council March 10, 2003 Page 8 <br />C <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />