Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: Minor Code Amendments ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: Minor Code Amendments Meeting Date: October 10, 2007 Agenda Item Number: A Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Steve Nystrom www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541/682-8385 ISSUE STATEMENT This work session is to provide an update and check-in on the Minor Code Amendments process. No formal action is needed at this time. However, the council will hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance addressing potential minor amendments to the Land Use Code in the coming months. BACKGROUND A few years ago, the City Council directed staff to undertake a process to amend the land use code in order to address a variety of discrete and, for the most part, minor issues that were emerging. Staff split this task into two phases. Phase 1 was completed over a year ago and focused on minor “clean-up” items aimed at clarifying ambiguous or conflicting language in the code. These amendments addressed issues primarily identified by staff as problematic, yet minor in nature. As this phase concluded, the council directed staff to focus the next phase of amendments on issues raised by the community. This second phase is the subject of this work session. With funding provided by the council, the City hired the consulting firm of Angelo Planning Group to serve as the project managers of Phase 2. This phase of the minor code amendment process began early this year with a focus on soliciting input from the public on how to improve the land use code. Several workshops and community forums were held over this period. One of the initial challenges of this project was the recognition that the number and intensity of suggestions would exceed the limited scope of this project. That expectation was realized as over 220 amendments were suggested by the public. Although it was clear that a small percentage of these suggestions could be addressed in this round of amendments, the project team did not want to lose or diminish the valuable input received by the community. As such, a library of suggested amendments has been created as a data base for future code amendment efforts. It is staff’s intention to continue to use this library as a clearinghouse for future suggestions that are made. In order to develop a manageable list of amendments that would move forward in this process, the Planning Commission, project team and community devoted substantial effort in prioritizing this library of suggested amendments to a manageable list. On August 29, 2007, the Planning Commission selected 20 potential amendments as the working list of amendments. Before moving forward, staff felt this milestone provided a good opportunity to apprise the council of the project status and direction and to hear any feedback from the council before proceeding with the next steps. F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071010\S071010A.doc Priority Amendments One of the significant challenges of this process has been the ability to develop a list of potential amendments that is both manageable and representative of the community’s input. In order to facilitate this outcome, the Planning Commission and staff asked for the community’s help in prioritizing the amendments they felt were most important, recognizing the limitations of the project scope. This effort ultimately proved very productive for the Planning Commission in guiding its selection of potential amendments. A synopsis of the 20 potential amendments is provided in the attached matrix. Virtually all of the amendments selected by the Planning Commission, with the exception of the council- related items, were rated by the various stakeholders as high priorities by various community members. In addition, the 20 amendments, as a package, closely reflect the public input received to date. The majority of input and involvement in this process has come from the neighborhood groups and individual residents. Many of the suggested amendments focused on residential-related standards. The Planning Commission’s list of amendments reflects this level of involvement as the vast majority of topics selected by the commission address issues ranked as “high priorities” by the neighborhoods. This includes such topics as the definition of building height, maximum density, lot dimensions, flag and alley access lots, multi-family parking requirements and open space. The Planning Commission also attempted to include amendments that were thematically connected, which better ensures a common direction. For example, many of the suggested amendments address the various definitions around how lots can be configured. Looking at this issue more holistically will enable a more seamless set of standards in the future. The Planning Commission also included the following amendments which the City Council had previously identified as issues it preferred to see addressed in this process. All of these issues have had some level of discussion with the council at previous work sessions and to a great extent, involve enforcement actions which have been tabled pending resolution of these potential amendments. Fence heights on corner lots ? Portable sign standards ? Number of dogs allowed per household (definition of kennel) ? Duplex, triplex and fourplex units in R-1 subdivisions: Allow owner to build single family unit ? instead of multi-family structure previously identified on approved subdivision. Next Steps Although the Planning Commission has selected a list of potential amendments that will move forward in this process, this by no means ensures their adoption. There are several steps ahead in this process that may affect the outcome of each amendment. Following is a synopsis of these next steps: Concept Development : In order to better understand each of these potential suggestions, the next step in this process will be to prepare “white papers” for each of the 20 potential amendments. These white papers will more fully identify the implications associated with each suggested amendment. This will include the mechanical changes needed in the code, potential policy issues, implementation challenges, as well as potential options on how to address the underlying concern. As part of that analysis, it may be determined that the scope of a particular amendment will require some adjustment to ensure it is manageable within this process. Prior to submitting these white papers to the Planning Commission, the project team plan to have further discussions with those community members who suggested the amendments to fully understand the F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071010\S071010A.doc intended objectives. Ultimately, the Planning Commission will evaluate the white papers and provide direction on how to proceed with each of the amendments. Planning Commission public hearing and deliberations : Based on the Planning Commission’s direction during the concept development discussions, the project team will prepare a draft ordinance which will include specific code language for each amendment. A public hearing on the draft ordinance will be held to enable additional public input from the community. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission will deliberate on the specific amendments and recommend action to the City Council. City Council public hearing and deliberations: The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the Planning Commission recommendation. This step will provide a second formal opportunity for the community to provide input on the draft ordinance, as well as input on the Planning Commission recommendation. The council will subsequently deliberate and take action on this ordinance, including any desired revisions. As the above steps indicate, there are still a few key steps in this process that will determine the eventual outcome of these suggested amendments. Ultimately, the City Council will be the final local decision maker on this ordinance. Project Information The project team has held numerous workshops and meetings with the community over the last several months. Summaries of those meetings, as well as all background materials, public input and presentation materials are posted on the project website at: www.eugene-or.gov/codeamendments. RELATED CITY POLICIES The City Council has included minor code amendments as a priority item on the Planning Division Work Program. This proposal is the second of two phases in staff’s effort to complete this task. COUNCIL OPTIONS The council may provide input and direction to staff on the project decisions to date and the next steps in the process. No formal action is anticipated, however options will be provided at the time this project comes back to the City Council for formal review. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION No action is required on this item. Therefore, no recommendations are offered by the City Manager at this time. A recommendation will be provided as part of the formal code amendment deliberations on the draft ordinance, following public hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council. SUGGESTED MOTION No action is required on this item; therefore, no motions are offered by the City Manager at this time. A suggested motion will be provided at the time of formal deliberations on the draft ordinance. F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071010\S071010A.doc ATTACHMENTS A. Potential Amendments selected by the Planning Commission B. Summary of August 29, 2007, Planning Commission meeting C. Planning Commission’s overall ratings of high priority amendments FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Steve Nystrom Telephone: 541/682-8385 Staff E-Mail: steven.a.nystrom@ci.eugene.or.us F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071010\S071010A.doc ATTACHMENT A Planning Commission List of Amendments Library Suggested Item Description Complexity Comments by #’s 7, 111, Definition of alley access More clearly define existing prohibition on A NL+ 135 lot/parcel alley access lots Definition of building height Measure building height from peak of roof, 8, 101 A NL+ not mid-point of eaves. Create separate height limits for pitched and flat roofs Definition of flag lot Clarify definition regarding frontage and 12, 109 A NL+ access. Also link definition to multi-family zones Definition of lot depth/width Change how lot width/depth are measured 16, 107 A NL+ to ensure appropriate building area Definition of lot frontage Expand definition to include more than 17, 108 A NL+ front lot line (measure to front setback) Define vehicle access New definition to address actual access 66 A NL+ corridor vs. buildable lot area. Recalibrate methodology Remove ability to round up past maximum for calculating maximum density limit. 68 A NL+ density to reflect zones Private roads in Clarify that private streets don’t count in lot subdivisions: Do not area calculations 92 A NL+ include street in calculating square footage of the lot Eliminate requirement for Since PUD’s require more extensive public Site Review for projects that process and criteria than site review 95 A R+ have an approved final process, Site Review is unnecessary in PUD these situations Define buildable area Connected with vehicle use area and lot 98 A NL+ definitions Min/Max density alteration Creates table that spells out number of 100 A NL+ and simplification units allowed per lot size 147, Fence heights for corner Consider change to fence height A CC 210 Lots limit/setback standard for corner lots Library Suggested Item Description Complexity Comments by #’s Duplex, triplex, four-plex Clarify that duplex, triplex and four-plex 151 A CC lots shown on R-1 plats lots optional if shown on R-1 plats Address allowance for Consider change to portable sign portable signs-- Prohibited limitations 186 B CC sign ordinance currently complaint driven. Open space credit when Change measurement to be physically public park open space is accessible within ¼ mile vs. simple straight 191 B/A NL+ located nearby (multi-family line measurement development standards) Minimum number of Increase the off-street parking requirement required off-street parking for multi-family residential units containing 192, spaces for multiple family 3 or more bedrooms. Also, eliminate B NL+ 193 residential units in areas existing allowance for 25% reduction in off- with parking permit program street parking requirement. (e.g. W. University) Stormwater standards: On-Encourage on-site filtration as preferred site filtration in River Road method. Strengthen/ clarify conditions 206, and Santa Clara. under which disturbance can occur within B NL+ 209 Protection re: disturbance drainage ways. within drainage ways Final subdivision and Change Final Plats from Type II to Type I 218 partition plats to follow a A R+, PLSO+ process consistent with State Law Type I Process Definition of Kennel Consider new definition of kennel to 35 A CC address number of dogs allowed in residential zones Developer meeting with Require developers to meet with 114 neighborhoods B/A PC neighborhoods on significant projects prior to filing application Complexity A: Manageable. Minor resources needed B: More substantial resource impact, but manageable C: Beyond the scope of this process Suggested By NL: Neighborhood Leaders Council CC: City Council PC: Planning Commission R: Resident PLSO: Professional Land Surveyor’s of Oregon +: Suggested as a high priority ATTACHMENT B •• LAND USE PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROJECT MANAGEMENT Memorandum Date: September 6, 2007 To: City of Eugene Planning Commission cc: Steve Nystrom, City of Eugene Project Manager From: Cathy Corliss th Re: City of Eugene Minor Code Amendment Project – Summary of August 29 Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission met on Wednesday, August 29 at 5 p.m. in the Sloat Room to discuss the minor code amendment project with the goal of establishing a list of 15 to 20 potential code amendments that would be the subject of further study in “white papers”. In advance of the meeting, the Planning Commission rated the 100+ minor code amendments, which were identified by the public as priorities, as high, medium or low priority. Each member of the Planning Commission submitted their input to the consultant team to be tallied. At the meeting City project manager, Steve Nystrom, and project consultant, Cathy Corliss reviewed the results of the Planning Commissioners’ evaluations. They noted that 12 items were identified as “high” priority by four or more Planning Commissioners, that 10 were identified as “high” priority by . at least three Planning Commissioners, and that together, these create a list of 22 items. Cathy Corliss explained that the number of white papers needed to address the full list is 18, given the potential to combine the discussions of the following items: items 16 and 107, items 147 and 210, items 192 and 193, and items 206 and 209. In addition, Steve Nystrom noted that items #111, #135, #108, #109, and #101 could be addressed in conjunction with other items. Cathy Corliss explained that the white papers would likely be 3 to 4 pages in length and would identify the proposed amendment and explore issues related to implementation, stakeholder input, potential conforming amendments, and examples from other codes. The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the list of 22 items which received three or more “high” votes. Members of the public provided testimony in support of many of the Planning Commission’s highly rated code amendments. Commissioner John Belcher advocated for inclusion of an additional amendment (#114) which would require developers to meet with neighborhood groups prior to formal processing of more significant applications. He also emphasized the importance of considering the City’s Growth Management Policies when reviewing the potential code amendments. Steve Nystrom also suggested that the Planning Commission may want to give further consideration to including the City Council’s suggested item #35 related to the definition of dog kennels. 921 SW Washington, Suite 468, Portland, OR 97205 • tel 503.224.6974 • fax 503.227.3679 • www.angeloplanning.com September 6, 2007 City of Eugene Planning Commission Meeting Summary 2 As a result of public input and its deliberations, the Planning Commission reached agreement on the following list of potential code amendments which would be the subject of further study. The next step in the process will be to prepare “white papers” for each of these amendments which will more fully evaluate the tasks and factors (legal, policy, implementation, etc.) associated with each. More detailed information on the amendments can be found on the Minor Code Amendments webpage at: www.eugene-or.gov/codeamendments. Summary List of 20 White Paper Topics Library Item Description Numbers 1 Definition of Alley Access/Lot/Parcel 7 / 111 / 135 2 Definition of Building Height 8 / 101 3 Definition of Flag Lot 12 / 109 4 Definition of Lot depth/width / Drop “Lot Width” minimum 16 / 107 5 Definition of Lot Frontage 17 / 108 6 Definition of Kennel 35 7 Define Vehicle Access Corridor 66 8 Recalibrate max density to correctly reflect zones 68 9 Private roads and subdivisions – not included in square footage of the lot 92 Eliminate requirement for a Site Review application for projects that have an 10 95 approved final PUD 11 Define Buildable Area 98 12 Min/Max density alteration and simplification 100 13 Earlier input into development process 114 14 Fence Heights for residential corner lots 147 / 210 15 Duplex, triplex, four-plex lots to be shown on R-1 plats 151 16 Allowance for portable signs 186 17 Open Space Credit when public park open space is located nearby 191 Minimum Number of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces Adjustment in RPP 18 Zones / Minimum Number of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces for Multiple 192 / 193 a Family Residential in RPP Zone - - new code section added Prioritize On-Site Infiltration as the Stormwater Destination in River Road and 19 Santa Clara / Protection Against Disturbances or Development in Drainage 204 / 209 Ways 20 Final subdivision and partition plats to follow a Type I Process 218 ?? LAND USE PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROJECT MANAGEMENT Memorandum Date: August 15, 2007 To: City of Eugene Planning Commission cc: Steve Nystrom, City of Eugene Project Manager From: Cathy Corliss Re: City of Eugene Minor Code Amendment Project PROJECT BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE èÔÓÉÌÊÍÒ×ÙÈÓÉÓÎÈ×ÎØ×ØÈÍÌÊÓÏÛÊÓÐÃÛØØÊ×ÉÉÏÓÎÍÊÙÍØ×ÛÏ×ÎØÏ×ÎÈÉÊÛÓÉ×ØÚÃÈÔ×Ø×Æ×ÐÍÌÏ×ÎÈ ÙÍÏÏÇÎÓÈÃÎ×ÓÕÔÚÍÊÔÍÍØÉÛÎØÍÈÔ×ÊÉÈÛÑ×ÔÍÐØ×ÊÉóÎÍÊØ×ÊÈÍÉÈÛÊÈÍÊÕÛÎÓÂÓÎÕÈÔ×ÐÓÚÊÛÊÃÅ×ÛÉÑ×Ø ÈÔÛÈÛÐÐÉÇÕÕ×ÉÈÓÍÎÉÚ×ÉÇÚÏÓÈÈ×ØÚÃïÛà  ÉÇÕÕ×ÉÈÓÍÎÉÔÛÆ×Ú××Î ÙÍÎÈÊÓÚÇÈ×ØÈÍÈÔ×ÙÍØ×ÛÏ×ÎØÏ×ÎÈÐÓÚÊÛÊÃóÈÅÛÉÛÎÈÓÙÓÌÛÈ×ØÈÔÛÈÈÔ×ÐÓÉÈÍÖÓÉÉÇ×ÉÊÛÓÉ×ØÚÃÈÔ× ÙÍÏÏÇÎÓÈÃÅÍÇÐØÚ×ÖÛÊÕÊ×ÛÈ×ÊÈÔÛÎÈÔ×ÌÊÍÒ×ÙÈÉÙÍÌ×ÙÍÇÐØÛÙÙÍÏÏÍØÛÈ×åתÊ××ÉÈÓÏÛÈÓÎÕÈÔÛÈ ÈÔ×ÈÍÈÛÐÎÇÏÚ×ÊÍÖÛÏ×ÎØÏ×ÎÈÉ×Æ×ÎÈÇÛÐÐÃÈÛÑ×ÎÈÍÔ×ÛÊÓÎÕÚ×ÖÍÊ×ÈÔ×ùÓÈÃùÍÇÎÙÓÐÅÓÐÐÎÍÈ×ÄÙ××Ø ÈÍ Ð×ÙÈÓÍÎÌÊÍÙ×ÉÉØÍ×ÉÎÍÈ×ÄÙ××ØÈÔ×ÚÇØÕ×È ÈÔ ûÈÈÔ×ïÛà êÍÇÎØÈÛÚÐ×ÈÔ×ìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÛÎØÙÍÏÏÇÎÓÈÃØÓÉÙÇÉÉ×ØØÓÖÖ×Ê×ÎÈÙÊÓÈ×ÊÓÛ ÈÔÛÈÙÍÇÐØÚ×ÇÉ×ØÈÍÔ×ÐÌÓØ×ÎÈÓÖÃÛÉ×ÈÍÖÌÊÍÌÍÉ×ØÛÏ×ÎØÏ×ÎÈÉÈÔÛÈÙÍÇÐØÚ×ØÍÎ×ÚÃöÛÐÐ ÛÎØ ÅÓÈÔÓÎÈÔ×ÉÙÍÌ×ÍÖÈÔÓÉÌÊÍÒ×ÙÈïÍÊ×ÈÔÛÎ ÍÖÈÔ×ÛÏ×ÎØÏ×ÎÈÉÅ×Ê×ÓØ×ÎÈÓÖÓ×ØÚÃÈÔ×ÌÇÚÐÓÙÛÉ ÈÔ ÌÊÓÍÊÓÈÓ×ÉÛÈÈÔ×òÇÐà êÍÇÎØÈÛÚÐ×ûÈÈÔ×ÙÍÎÙÐÇÉÓÍÎÍÖÈÔÛÈÏ××ÈÓÎÕÈÔ×ìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍÎ ÛÕÊ××ØÈÔÛÈ×ÛÙÔùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍÎ×ÊÅÍÇÐØÉÇÚÏÓÈÛÎÓÎØÓÆÓØÇÛÐÐÓÉÈÍÖÌÊÓÍÊÓÈÓ×ÉÈÔÛÈÙÍÇÐØÈÔ×ÎÚ×ÇÉ×Ø ÈÔ ÈÍÔ×ÐÌÎÛÊÊÍÅÈÔ×ÐÓÉÈÖÇÊÈÔ×ÊÛÈÈÔ×ûÇÕÇÉÈ Ï××ÈÓÎÕ íÎÙ×ÈÔ×ÐÓÉÈÍÖÌÍÈ×ÎÈÓÛÐÛÏ×ÎØÏ×ÎÈÉÓÉÎÛÊÊÍÅ×ØÌÍÈ×ÎÈÓÛÐÉÍÐÇÈÓÍÎÉÈÍÛØØÊ×ÉÉÈÔ×ÆÛÊÓÍÇÉÌÊÓÍÊÓÈà ÓÈ×ÏÉÅÓÐÐÈÔ×ÎÚ×Ø×Æ×ÐÍÌ×ØóÈÓÉÛÎÈÓÙÓÌÛÈ×ØÈÔÛÈÈÔ×É×ÉÍÐÇÈÓÍÎÉÅÍÇÐØÚ×ÌÊ×É×ÎÈ×ØÏÍÊ×ÛÉ ÙÍÎÙ×ÌÈÉÈÔÛÎÌÊ×ÙÓÉ×ÙÍØ×ÐÛÎÕÇÛÕ×öÍÐÐÍÅÓÎÕÓÎÌÇÈÍÎÈÔ×ØÊÛÖÈÉÍÐÇÈÓÍÎÉÈÔ×ÏÍÊ×ÉÌ×ÙÓÖÓÙ ÐÛÎÕÇÛÕ×ÖÍÊÈÔ×ÌÊÓÍÊÓÈÃÙÍØ×ÛÏ×ÎØÏ×ÎÈÉÅÓÐÐÚ×Ø×Æ×ÐÍÌ×ØÛÎØÈÔ×ìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÅÓÐÐÔÍÐØ ÅÍÊÑÉ×ÉÉÓÍÎÉÛÎØÙÍÎØÇÙÈÛÌÇÚÐÓÙÔ×ÛÊÓÎÕØÇÊÓÎÕÅÔÓÙÔÈÔ×ÙÍÏÏÇÎÓÈÃÅÓÐÐÔÛÆ×ÛÎÍÌÌÍÊÈÇÎÓÈÃÈÍ ÙÍÏÏ×ÎÈÍÎÈÔ×ÌÊÍÌÍÉ×ØÛÏ×ÎØÏ×ÎÈÉ Summary of the Results ûÉÎÍÈ×ØÛÚÍÆ×ÈÔ×ìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÛÕÊ××ØÈÍÊÛÈ×ÈÔ× ÛÏ×ÎØÏ×ÎÈÉÅÔÓÙÔÅ×Ê× ÓØ×ÎÈÓÖÓ×ØÚÃÈÔ×ÌÇÚÐÓÙÛÉÌÊÓÍÊÓÈÓ×ÉÛÉÔÓÕÔÏ×ØÓÇÏÍÊÐÍÅÌÊÓÍÊÓÈÃ÷ÛÙÔÏ×ÏÚ×ÊÍÖÈÔ×ìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕ ùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÉÇÚÏÓÈÈ×ØÈÔ×ÓÊÓÎÌÇÈÈÍÈÔ×ÙÍÎÉÇÐÈÛÎÈÈ×ÛÏÈÍÚ×ÈÛÐÐÓ×ØèÔ×Ê×ÉÇÐÈÉÍÖÈÔÓÉ×ÖÖÍÊÈÛÊ× ÉÇÏÏÛÊÓÂ×ØÓÎÈÔ×ÈÛÚÐ×Ú×ÐÍÅûÉÈÔÓÉÈÛÚÐ×ÉÔÍÅÉ ©ÔÓÕÔ¨ÌÊÓÍÊÓÈÃÚÃÖÍÇÊ èÔ×ÈÍÈÛÐÍÖ ÎØÛÎÙÃÛÉÛÊ×ÉÇÐÈÍÖÉÓÏÓÐÛÊÉÇÕÕ×ÉÈÓÍÎÉÚ×ÓÎÕÏÛØ×ÚÃØÓÖÖ×Ê×ÎÈÌ×ÍÌÐ× 921 SW Washington, Suite 468, Portland, OR 97205 • tel 503.224.6974 • fax 503.227.3679 • www.angeloplanning.com August 15, 2007 City of Eugene Planning Commission Memorandum 2 ÍÊÏÍÊ×ìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍÎ×ÊÉÛÎØ Å×Ê×ÓØ×ÎÈÓÖÓ×ØÛÉ©ÔÓÕÔ¨ÌÊÓÍÊÓÈÃÚÃÛÈÐ×ÛÉÈÈÔÊ××ìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕ ùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍÎ×ÊÉèÍÕ×ÈÔ×ÊÈÔ×É×ÙÊ×ÛÈ×ÛÐÓÉÈÍÖ õÓÆ×ÎÍÇÊÈÛÊÕ×ÈÍÖ ÈÍ ÓÈ×ÏÉÈÔÓÉÐÓÉÈ ÉÔÍÅÎÓÎÈÔ×ÈÛÚÐ×Ú×ÐÍÅÌÊÍÆÓØ×ÉÛÕÍÍØÉÈÛÊÈÓÎÕÌÐÛÙ×ÖÍÊØÓÉÙÇÉÉÓÍÎôÍÅ×Æ×ÊÈÔ×ìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕ ùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÏÛÃÅÓÉÔÈÍÏÛÑ×ÍÈÔ×ÊÛØÒÇÉÈÏ×ÎÈÉÍÊÉÇÚÉÈÓÈÇÈÓÍÎÉÚÛÉ×ØÍÎÈÔ×ÓÎÌÇÈÛÎØØÓÉÙÇÉÉÓÍÎ ÈÔ ×ÄÌ×ÙÈ×ØÛÈÈÔ×ûÇÕÇÉÈ Ï××ÈÓÎÕûÏÛÈÊÓÄÉÔÍÅÓÎÕÈÔ×ÏÍÊ×Ø×ÈÛÓÐ×ØÓÎÖÍÊÏÛÈÓÍÎÛÚÍÇÈÈÔ× Ê×ÉÇÐÈÉÓÉÓÎÙÐÇØ×ØÛÉûÈÈÛÙÔÏ×ÎÈû Summary List of 22 Items which Received Three or More “High” Votes A/No. of Related Item Description B/Priority* VotesComments Projects C(High) Definition of Alley 7 / 44 / 111 / 135 are related to 7A NL+ 6 Access/Lot/Parcel alley access 8 / 37 /101 are related to 8 Definition of Building Height A NL+ 4 building height 12 / 102 / 109 / 221 are related 12 Definition of Flag Lot A NL+ Infill 3 to flag lot standards 16 / 51 / 107 are closely 16 Definition of Lot depth/width A NL+ 4 related 17 Definition of Lot Frontage A NL+ 3 17 / 108 are closely related 66 Define Vehicle Access Corridor A NL+ Infill 3 66 / 133 are related Recalibrate max density to 68A NL+ Infill 5 correctly reflect zones Private roads and subdivisions 92- not included in square A NL+ 5 footage of the lot Eliminate requirement for an 95approved SPR for projects that A SM+ 4 95 / 122 are related have an approved final PUD *extra mark from one 98 Define Buildable Area A NL+ Infill 3 commissioner (med and low) Min/Max density alteration and 100A NL+ Infill 3 simplification 16 / 51 / 107 are closely 107 Drop "Lot Width" minimum A NL+ 4 related Fence Heights for Res. Lots 147 / 210 address the same 147A CC 4 With > 1 frontage issue 2 The number of white papers needed to address the full list is 18, given the potential to combine the discussions of the following items: items 16 and 107, items 147 and 210, items 192 and 193, and items 206 and 209. August 15, 2007 City of Eugene Planning Commission Memorandum 3 A/No. of Related Item Description B/Priority* VotesComments Projects C(High) Duplex, triplex, four-plex lots to 151A CC 6 be shown on R-1 plats Need to address allowance for portable signs-- Prohibited sign 186B CC 3 ordinance: currently complaint driven. Open Space Credit when B/Could be an “A” if limited in public park open space is 191NL+ Infill 4 Ascope located nearby Minimum Number of Required 192Off-Street Parking Spaces B NL+, FE Infill 3 192 / 193 are closely related Adjustment in RPP Zones Minimum Number of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces for 193Multiple Family Residential in B NL+ Infill 4 192 / 193 are closely related RPP Zone - - new code section added Prioritize On-Site Infiltration as 206the Stormwater Destination in B NL+ 3 204 to 209 are related River Road and Santa Clara Protection Against 209Disturbances or Development B NL+ 3 204 to 209 are related in Drainage Ways Fence Setbacks on Residential 147 / 210 address the same 210A CC 4 Corner Lots issue Final subdivision and partition C/SM+, 218 3 plats to follow a Type I Process APLSO * This field identifies group(s) and/or individuals who identified the item as a priority. The priority submission Abbreviations are as follows: NL+=NLC top priority; NL=NLC priority; EW=EWEB; SM+= Susannah Meininger Top 13; SM= Susannah Meininger; FE=Friends of Eugene; CC=City Council; PLSO=Professional Land Surveyors of Oregon; AC=Arlie & Co.; RH=Rob Handy; BR=Becky Riley, LCH=Lane County Homebuilders; U = Source uncertain. Next Steps úÛÉ×ØÍÎÈÔ×ìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍΪÉØÓÊ×ÙÈÓÍÎÈÔ×ùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÅÓÐÐØÓÉÙÇÉÉÈÔ×ÓÊ×ÆÛÐÇÛÈÓÍÎÊ×ÉÇÐÈÉ ÛÈÈÔ×Î×ÄÈïÓÎÍÊùÍØ×ûÏ×ÎØÏ×ÎÈÏ××ÈÓÎÕ ûÈÈÔÛÈÏ××ÈÓÎÕÈÔ×ÌÇÚÐÓÙÅÓÐÐÛÐÉÍÔÛÆ×ÛÎÍÌÌÍÊÈÇÎÓÈÃÈÍÌÊÍÆÓØ×Ö××ØÚÛÙÑÈÍÈÔ× ìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÍÎÈÔ××ÆÛÐÇÛÈÓÍÎÊ×ÉÇÐÈÉöÍÐÐÍÅÓÎÕÈÔÓÉØÓÉÙÇÉÉÓÍÎÅ×ÔÍÌ×ÈÍÖÓÎÛÐÓÂ×ÈÔ× ìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍΪÉÉ×Ð×ÙÈÓÍÎÉÛÈÈÔÓÉÏ××ÈÓÎÕ August 15, 2007 City of Eugene Planning Commission Memorandum 4 óÎÈÔ×Ï×ÛÎÈÓÏ×Å××ÄÌ×ÙÈÈÍÏÛÓÎÈÛÓÎÛÎÍÌ×ÎÌÛÈÔÅÛÃÖÍÊÖÇÊÈÔ×ÊÓÎÌÇÈÖÊÍÏÉÈÛÑ×ÔÍÐØ×ÊÉÛÎØ ÙÍÏÏÇÎÓÈÃÏ×ÏÚ×ÊÉå×ÅÓÐÐÖÍÊÅÛÊØÓÎÖÍÊÏÛÈÓÍÎÓÖÛÎÃÖÊÍÏÉÈÛÑ×ÔÍÐØ×ÊÉÛÎØÙÍÏÏÇÎÓÈà Ï×ÏÚ×ÊÉÈÍìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍÎ×ÊÉÛÉÅ×Ê×Ù×ÓÆ×ÓÈ èÔÛÎÑÉÖÍÊÃÍÇÊÌÛÈÓ×ÎÙ×ÅÓÈÔÈÔÓÉÌÊÍÙ×ÉÉå×ÇÎØ×ÊÉÈÛÎØÈÔÛÈÔÛÆÓÎÕÉÍÏÇÙÔÓÎÖÍÊÏÛÈÓÍÎÖÊÍÏ ÅÔÓÙÔÈÍÉ×Ð×ÙÈÓÉØÓÖÖÓÙÇÐÈÛÎØÍÖÈ×ÎÖÊÇÉÈÊÛÈÓÎÕÈÍÍÇÊÌÊÍÙ×ÉÉÌÛÊÈÓÙÓÌÛÎÈÉôÍÅ×Æ×ÊÅ×ÙÍÎÈÓÎÇ×ÈÍ Ê×Ù×ÓÆ×ÆÛÐÇÛÚÐ×ÓÎÖÍÊÏÛÈÓÍÎÖÊÍÏÅÔÓÙÔÈÍÛÉÉÓÉÈÅÓÈÔÃÍÇÊØ×ÙÓÉÓÍÎÉåתÊ×ÐÍÍÑÓÎÕÖÍÊÅÛÊØÈÍÃÍÇÊ Ê×ÉÌÍÎÉ×É ATTACHMENTS: ûÈÈÛÙÔÏ×ÎÈû¦ìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍÎ÷ÆÛÐÇÛÈÓÍÎïÛÈÊÓÄ