HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2: Ordinance on Minor Code Amendments
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Public Hearing: - An Ordinance Concerning Land Use
Minor Code Amendments
Regulations; Amending Sections 9.0020, 9.0500, 9.2160, 9.2450, 9.2630, 9.2683, 9.2740,
9.2741, 9.2751, 9.2760, 9.2761, 9.2775, 9.3310, 9.3810, 9.3910, 9.5500, 9.6410, 9.6790
9.6791, 9.7010, 9.7055, 9.7105, 9.7205, 9.7230, 9.8320, 9.8430, 9.8555, and 4.330 of the
Eugene Code, 1971; Adding a New Section 9.7007 to that Code; and Providing an
Effective Date
Meeting Date: June 16, 2008 Agenda Item Number: 2
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Alissa Hansen
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541/682-5508
ISSUE STATEMENT
The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider an ordinance on minor amendments to the
Eugene Land Use Code (Chapter 9).
BACKGROUND
The minor code amendment project is intended to primarily address code amendments raised by
community members. The amendment topics under consideration are the result of an extensive public
outreach process over the past year that included numerous workshops, forums and other public
meetings. The majority of the 18 amendments included in the ordinance are representative of the
community’s input, with the remaining having been added by the council. The draft ordinance and a
summary of the amendments are attached.
The Planning Commission held a well-attended public hearing on the draft ordinance on May 21, 2008.
Following the close of the public hearing record on May 27, 2008, the Planning Commission met June 2,
2008, to deliberate and provide a recommendation on the proposed amendments to the City Council.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the majority of the amendments suggested by the
community, with minor modifications to six of the proposals. For two of the amendments, the Planning
Commission has concluded that the scope of the proposed amendments are not minor in nature, and
therefore is recommending that the City Council not adopt the proposed amendments at this time. The
Planning Commission further recommends that consideration of the two amendments be referred to the
Infill Compatibility Standards project for more comprehensive consideration and analysis of impacts and
benefits of the proposed amendments. Draft minutes from the Planning Commission’s May 21, 2008,
public hearing and June 2, 2008, meeting are provided as attachments D and E. The Planning
Commission recommendations are summarized below.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the following ten amendment topics (Planning
Commission vote in parenthesis):
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080616\S0806162.doc
3. Residential Density Calculations (5 to 2)*
6. Multi-Family Development/Open Space Credit for Nearby Parks (7 to 0)
9. Flag Lots Definition and Development Standards (7 to 0)
10. Lot Width and Lot Frontage Standards (7 to 0)
13. Duplex and Triplex Lots on R-1 Subdivision Plats (7 to 0)
14. Provide for Early Neighbor and Neighborhood Input into Development Process (7 to 0)
15. Final Subdivision and Partition Plats to follow Type I Process (7 to 0)
16. Eliminate Site Review Requirements for Projects with Approved Planned Unit Development
(7 to 0)
17. Add Definition of Residential Character (7 to 0)
18. Add Growth Management Policies to the Purpose Section of Chapter 9 (7 to 0)
* The Planning Commission also recommended that, in addition to approving the amendment on
residential density calculations, the City Council forward the topic to the Infill Compatibility Standards
project for further consideration as they found there was not a complete analysis to support .75 as the
cut-off for rounding up or to determine the impact of the amendment on overall density.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the following six amendment topics, with minor
revisions that are incorporated into the attached ordinance (vote in parenthesis):
1. Allowances for Dogs in Residential & Commercial Zones/Definition of Kennel (7 to 0)
Modification: added allowance for the keeping of a foster dog
2. Fence Heights for Corner/Double Frontage Lots in Residential Zones (7 to 0)
Modification: changed “back” wall to “front” wall to allow for 6-foot tall fence up to front
wall of a dwelling
4. Building Height Measurement in Residential Zones (7 to 0)
Modification: changed height allowance for steeper sloped roofs from 5 feet to 7 feet so that
resulting height will be consistent with the current code
8. Stormwater Destination: Encourage On-Site Infiltration as a Preferred Approach and Restrict
Fill and Disturbance of Drainage Ways (5 to 2)
Modification: removed (c) from Eugene Code section 9.6790(6) consistent with recently
adopted revisions to the City’s Stormwater Management Manual
11. Add Definition of Alley Access Only Lot/Parcel and Clarify Existing Prohibition (6 to 1)
Modification: revised alley access requirements for multi-family development sites by
requiring alley access for sites with arterial and collector streets and refer the topic to the
City’s Access Management Study for further review
12.Exclude Area within Private Streets from Residential Lot Areas (7 to 0)
Modification: changed to clarify alleys are also excluded from lot area
As mentioned above, the Planning Commission recommended that for two of the amendments, which
relate to building height transitions and multi-family parking standards, the City Council not adopt the
proposed amendments at this time and defer the topics to the Infill Compatibility Standards project for
further consideration. During discussions on these two topics, the Planning Commission raised concerns
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080616\S0806162.doc
that these amendments were not minor in nature and had broad policy implications. The Planning
Commission also expressed concern about the impacts of the amendments on residential density and
questioned if the proposed code language was the appropriate tool to address the issues. The Planning
Commission also acknowledged the difficultly in balancing density and livability and appreciated the
efforts of the neighborhoods. Ultimately, the Planning Commission agreed that these topics deserve a
more comprehensive look and broader community dialogue than could be afforded through the minor
code amendment process.
The text of the Planning Commission’s motion is presented below, following the amendment topics.
5. Building Height Transitions within South University Neighborhood Association
On this topic, the Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the City Council not adopt the
proposed amendment at this time and defer the topic to the Infill Compatibility Standards project for
further consideration to allow for a more comprehensive review and analysis of the issues and policy
choices, as well as identification of long term solutions. However, in the event the City Council decides
to adopt an amendment related to this topic, the Planning Commission would recommend the adoption
of a revised proposal put forth by the neighborhood (see Attachment C), as opposed to the proposal in
the draft ordinance.
7. Required Parking for Multi-Family Developments in West University and South University
Neighborhood Associations
On this amendment topic, the Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the City Council
not adopt the proposed amendment at this time and defer the topic to the Infill Compatibility Standards
project for further consideration to allow for a more comprehensive review and analysis of the issues
and policy choices, as well as identification of long term solutions. In making this recommendation the
Planning Commission stated that the parking issues near campus require review of a broader scope of
issues that may lead to other more appropriate tools or mechanisms to address this issue. Given these
fundamental questions, the Planning Commission did not recommend the City Council adopt the
proposed amendment or more recently suggested revision at this time.
Staff has incorporated the non-substantive Planning Commission recommendations into the draft
ordinance provided with this council packet (Attachment A). The draft ordinance also contains the
proposed language for the above two amendments considered by the Planning Commission. The
neighborhood proposed revision for amendment #5 is included as Attachment C.
The City Council held a work session on the minor code amendments on June 4, 2008, which provided
an opportunity for an overview of the draft ordinance. The City Council provided feedback on the
proposal including specific suggestions on potential modifications to the ordinance. To facilitate council
action on the draft ordinance by July 14, 2008, staff will provide a memorandum responding to the City
Council’s comments, including potential options that could be considered, prior to council action on July
14, 2008. Following the close of the public hearing, staff encourages City Council direction, to the
extent possible, on any possible modifications which should be considered at the July 14, 2008, meeting.
Background material on the key elements of this ordinance, as well as evidence and testimony provided
to the Planning Commission will be available for review in the City Council office.
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080616\S0806162.doc
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 City Council may consider the following options:
1. Approve the proposed ordinance
2. Approve the proposed ordinance with specific modifications as determined by the City Council
3. Deny the proposed ordinance
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
This item is scheduled for a public hearing only. Following the City’s receipt of all testimony, the City
Manager will make a recommendation to be included in the Council packet for action on July 14, 2008.
SUGGESTED MOTION
No motion is proposed as this item is scheduled for a public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
A.Draft Ordinance and Findings
B.Summary of Proposed Code Amendments
C.Neighborhood Proposed Revision for Amendment #5
D.Draft Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes from May 21, 2008
E.Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from June 2, 2008
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Alissa Hansen
Telephone: 541/682-5508
Staff E-Mail: alissa.h.hansen@ci.eugene.or.us
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080616\S0806162.doc
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. ___________
AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING LAND USE REGULATIONS;
AMENDING SECTIONS 9.0020, 9.0500, 9.2160, 9.2450, 9.2630, 9.2683,
9.2740, 9.2741, 9.2751, 9.2760, 9.2761, 9.2775, 9.3310, 9.3810, 9.3910,
9.5500, 9.6410, 9.6790 9.6791, 9.7010, 9.7055, 9.7105, 9.7205, 9.7230,
9.8320, 9.8430, 9.8555, AND 4.330 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971;
ADDING A NEW SECTION 9.7007 TO THAT CODE; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Section 9.0020 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as
follows:
9.0020 Purpose.
The purpose of the land use code is to protect and promote the health,
safety, and general welfare of the public and to preserve and enhance the
economic, social, and environmental qualities of the community.
(1)The land use code is intended to effectively and efficiently implement
applicable state and federal laws, the Metro Plan, and the following
policies from the Growth Management Study:
(a) Support the existing Eugene Urban Growth Boundary by taking
actions to increase density and use existing vacant land and
under-used land within the boundary more efficiently. (Policy 1)
(b) Encourage in-fill, mixed-use, redevelopment, and higher density
development. (Policy 2)
(c) Encourage a mix of businesses and residential uses downtown
using incentives and zoning. (Policy 3)
(d) Improve the appearance of buildings and landscapes. (Policy 4)
(e) Work cooperatively with Metro area partners (Springfield and Lane
County) and other nearby cities to avoid urban sprawl and
preserve the rural character in areas outside the urban growth
boundaries. (Policy 5)
(f) Increase density of new housing development while maintaining
the character and livability of individual neighborhoods. (Policy 6)
(g) Provide for a greater variety of housing types. (Policy 7)
(h) Promote construction of affordable housing. (Policy 8)
(i) Mitigate the impacts of new and/or higher density housing, in-fill,
and redevelopment on neighborhoods through design standards,
open space and housing maintenance programs, and continuing
historic preservation and neighborhood planning programs.
(Policy 9)
(j) Encourage the creation of transportation-efficient land use
patterns and implementation of nodal development concepts.
(Policy 10)
Ordinance -
1
(k) Increase the use of alternative modes of transportation by
improving the capacity, design, safety, and convenience of the
transit, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation systems. (Policy 11)
(l) Encourage alternatives to the use of single-occupant vehicles
through demand management techniques. (Policy 12)
(m) Focus future street improvements on relieving pressure on the
city’s most congested roadways and intersections to maintain an
acceptable level of mobility for all modes of transportation. (Policy
13)
(n) Development shall be required to pay the full cost of extending
infrastructure and services, except that the city will examine ways
to subsidize the costs of providing infrastructure or offer other
incentives that support higher-density, in-fill, mixed uses, and
nodal development. (Policy 14)
(o) Target publicly-financed infrastructure extensions to support
development for higher densities, in-fill, mixed uses, and nodal
development. (Policy 15)
(p) Focus efforts to diversify the local economy and provide family-
wage jobs principally by supporting local, and environmentally-
sensitive businesses. Direct available financial and regulatory
incentives to support these efforts. (Policy 16)
(q) Protect and improve air and water quality and protect natural areas
of good habitat value through a variety of means such as better
enforcement of existing regulations, new or revised regulations, or
other practices. (Policy 17)
(r) Increase the amount and variety of parks and open spaces. (Policy
18)
(s) Expand city efforts to achieve community-based policing. (Policy
19)
These policies shall serve as guidance as the city considers proposed
changes to this land use code.
(2)The land use code is designed to help:
(1)
a Attain community goals and policies.
(2)
bAllow amendments to local plans and regulatory measures to address
changes in circumstances and public values.
(3)
c Ensure an appropriate mix of land uses that provide the economic and
social advantages which result from an orderly, planned use of land.
(4)
d Provide adequate public facilities and services; allow for adequate light,
air, and open space; and protect from fire, flood, and other risks and
dangers.
(5)
e Preserve and restore significant historic resources and increase public
awareness of the community’s historic and cultural heritage.
(6)
f Preserve and enhance environmental resources, the natural scenic
beauty of the area, and aesthetic qualities of the community.
Section 2.
Section 9.0500 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by adding new
definitions of “Alley Access Only Lot/Parcel” and ”Residential Character” in alphabetical
Ordinance -
2
order therein, and amending the definitions of “Building Height,” “Flag Lots,” and
“Kennel,” to provide as follows:
9.0500 Definitions
. As used in this land use code, unless the context requires otherwise,
the following words and phrases mean:
Alley Access Only Lot/Parcel. A lot or parcel whose only legal and
practicable vehicle access to the portion of the lot on which the dwelling(s) or
other main building(s) will be located is from the alley.
Building Height
. The vertical distance above a reference datum measured to the
highest point of the coping of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the
average height of the gables of a pitched or hipped roof. For the purposes of
residential zones, building height shall be the vertical distance above a
reference datum measured to the highest point of the roof. The maximum
height of a stepped or terraced building is the maximum height of all segments of
that building. The reference datum shall be whichever of the following two
measurements results in the greater building height:
(A) The reference datum is the lowest grade when the highest ground surface
within a five-foot horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building is not
more than 10 feet above the lowest grade.
(B) The reference datum is 10 feet higher than the lowest grade when the highest
ground surface described in item (A) above is 10 feet or more above the
lowest grade.
(See Figure 9.0500 Building Height Calculation.)
Flag Lot
. A lot [with less frontage on a public street than is generally required by
this land use code and where that frontage serves primarily as a vehicular access
corridor] located behind another lot except for a narrow portion extending to
the public street which is suitable for vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian
access. The “flag pole” of a flag lot is the access corridor to the buildable “flag
portion” of the lot. [The “flag portion” of the flag lot is located behind a lot that has
(See Figure 9.2775(2) Residential Flag Lot
the generally required street frontage.]
Description.)
Kennel
. An establishment or premises on which [3] 4 or more dogs over 6 months
of age are kept or maintained, whether by owners of the dogs or by persons
providing facilities and care, and whether or not for compensation, not including
the temporary keeping of one additional dog for up to 6 months in any 12-
month period. For purposes of this definition, if the “premises” consists of a
lot that contains a main dwelling and a secondary dwelling unit, the
“premises” means the lot. (See EC 9.2741(2)(a)5.)
Residential Character. A combination of qualities and features that gives
identity to a particular area where the predominant use is housing and that
distinguishes the area from other areas.
Ordinance -
3
Section 3.
The paragraph preceding Table 9.2160 in Section 9.2160 of the
Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows:
9.2160 Commercial Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements.
The following Table
9.2160 Commercial Zone Land Uses and Permit Requirements identifies those uses
in Commercial Zones that are:
(P) Permitted, subject to zone verification.
(SR) Permitted, subject to an approved site review plan or an approved final
planned unit development.
(C) Subject to a conditional use permit or an approved final planned unit
development.
(S) Permitted, subject to zone verification and the Special Development
Standards for Certain Uses beginning at EC 9.5000.
(#) The numbers in ( ) in the table are uses that have special use limitations
described in EC 9.2161.
Examples shown in Table 9.2160 are for informational purposes, and are not
exclusive. Table 9.2160 does not indicate uses subject to Standards Review.
Applicability of Standards Review procedures is set out at EC 9.8465.
Section 4.
The paragraph preceding Table 9.2450 in Section 9.2450 of the
Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows:
9.2450 Industrial Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements
. The following Table 9.2450
Industrial Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements identifies those uses in the
Industrial Zones that are:
(P) Permitted, subject to zone verification.
(SR) Permitted, subject to an approved site review plan or an approved final
planned unit development.
(C) Subject to a conditional use permit or an approved final planned unit
development.
(S) Permitted subject to zone verification and the Special Development Standards
for Certain Uses beginning at EC 9.5000.
(#) The numbers in ( ) in the table are uses that have special use limitations that
are described in EC 9.2451.
The examples listed in Table 9.2450 are for informational purposes and are not
exclusive. Table 9.2450 does not indicate uses subject to Standards Review.
Applicability of Standards Review procedures is set out at EC 9.8465.
Section 5.
The paragraph preceding Table 9.2630 in Section 9.2630 of the
Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows:
Ordinance -
4
9.2630 PRO Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements.
The following Table 9.2630
Park, Recreation, and Open Space Zone Uses and Permit Requirements identifies
those uses in the PRO zone that are:
(P) Permitted if use complies with special setbacks shown in Table 9.2640. If the
use does not meet the special setbacks in Table 9.2640, the use may be
approved through the conditional use permit process. Shall require zone
verification.
(SR) Permitted, subject to an approved site review plan or an approved final
planned unit development.
(C) Subject to a conditional use permit or an approved final planned unit
development.
(S) Permitted, subject to the Special Development Standards for Certain Uses
beginning at EC 9.5000 and zone verification.
(#) The numbers in ( ) in the table are uses that have special use limitations that
are described in EC 9.2631.
Entertainment and recreational uses allowed in other zones are subject to the
standards set out for those zones. Any examples reflected in Table 9.2630 are for
informational purposes only and are not exclusive. Table 9.2630 does not indicate
uses subject to Standards Review. Applicability of Standards Review procedures is
set out at EC 9.8465.
Section 6.
Subsection (2) of Section 9.2683 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is
amended to provide as follows:
9.2683Special Use Limitations.
(2) Permitted Uses Subject to Site Review.
When a proposed public use, other
than those listed in subsection (3) of this section, is to be located within 300
feet of land in the broad zone category of residential, and such use will
generate the need for a Traffic Impact Analysis according to EC 9.8670
Applicability, such use shall be subject to an approved site review application
[according to the Type II procedures] or an approved final planned unit
development application.
Section 7.
The paragraph preceding Table 9.2740 in Section 9.2740 of the
Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows:
9.2740 Residential Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements.
The following Table
9.2740 Residential Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements identifies those uses
in the residential zones that are:
(P) Permitted, subject to zone verification.
(SR) Permitted, subject to an approved site review plan or an approval final
planned unit development.
(C) Subject to an approved conditional use permit or an approved final
planned unit development.
(PUD) Permitted, subject to an approved final planned unit development.
Ordinance -
5
(S) Permitted, subject to zone verification and the Special Development
Standards for Certain Uses beginning at EC 9.5000.
(#) The numbers in ( ) in the table are uses that have special use limitations
that are described in EC 9.2741 Special Use Limitations for Table
9.2740.
The examples listed in Table 9.2740 are for informational purposes and are not
exclusive. Table 9.2740 does not indicate uses subject to Standards Review.
Applicability of Standards Review procedures is set out at EC 9.8465.
Section 8.
Subsections (2)(a) and (4) of Section 9.2741 of the Eugene Code,
1971, are amended to provide as follows:
9.2741 Special Use Limitations for Table 9.2740.
(2) Secondary Dwellings.
Secondary dwellings are only permitted in R-1 and
are subject to the standards below.
(a) Secondary dwellings that are within the same building as the primary
dwelling shall comply with all of the following:
1. The dwelling shall not exceed 800 square feet unless occupying
the full story of a multi-story structure with ground floor residential
use.
2. Either the primary dwelling or the secondary dwelling shall be
occupied by the property owner.
3. There shall be at least 1 off-street parking space on the property.
4. Except for flag lots, the lot shall be at least 4,500 square feet.
Flag lots shall contain at least 13,500 square feet to permit a
secondary dwelling.
5. No more than 3 dogs shall be permitted on the lot, not
including the temporary keeping of one additional dog for up
to 6 months in any 12-month period.
(4) Duplex.
When located in R-1, a duplex shall conform to 1 of the following
standards:
(a) The duplex was legally established on August 1, 2001.
(b) The duplex is on a corner lot abutting public streets as provided in EC
9.2760 Residential Zone Lot Standards, which is at least 8,000 square
feet in size.
(c) The duplex is on a lot that was identified as being developable for a
duplex [lot in] on a subdivision plat.
Section 9.
Subsections (1)(c), (3) and (13)(b) of Section 9.2751 of the Eugene
Code, 1971, are amended to provide as follows:
9.2751 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2750.
(1)Density.
Ordinance -
6
(c) For purposes of calculating net density, the acreage of land considered
part of the residential use shall exclude public [property, including] and
private streets and alleys, public parks, and other public facilities. In
calculating the minimum net density required for a specific lot or
development site, the planning director shall round down to the previous
whole number. In calculating the maximum net density allowed for
a specific lot or development site less than 13,500 square feet in
area, the planning director shall round up to the next whole
number for fractions of .75 or above and round down for fractions
below .75. In calculating the maximum net density allowed for a
specific lot or development site 13,500 square feet or greater in area,
the planning director shall round up to the next whole number. At the
request of the developer, the acreage also may exclude natural or
historic resources. For purposes of this section, natural resources
include those designated for protection in an adopted plan and the area
within natural resources protection or conservation setbacks that have
been applied to the development site. For purposes of this section,
historic resources include historic property and resources identified in an
official local inventory as “primary” or “secondary.” It may also include
additional natural or historic resources upon approval of the planning
director.
(3)
Building Height.
(a) Except as provided below, [I]in the R-3 and R-4 zone, the maximum
building height shall be limited to 30 feet for that portion of the building
located within 50 feet from the abutting boundary of, or directly across
an alley from, land zoned R-1.
(b) An additional 7 feet of building height is allowed for roof slopes of
6:12 or steeper in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones.
(c) For that area bound by Hilyard Street to the west, Agate Street to
thth
the east, East 18 Avenue to the north and East 20 Avenue to the
south:
1. In the R-3 zone, the maximum building height shall be limited
to 35 feet for that portion of the building located within 50 feet
from the abutting boundary of, or directly across an alley
from, land zoned R-1.
2. In the R-4 zone, the maximum building height shall be limited
to 35 feet for that portion of the building located within 50 feet
from the abutting boundary of, or directly across an alley
from, land zoned R-1. It shall be limited to 50 feet for that
portion of the building located within 175 feet from land
zoned R-3, and shall be limited to 75 feet for that portion of
the building located within 176 feet and 225 feet of land zoned
R-3.
(13)Fences.
(b) Location and Heights.
1. Fences up to 42 inches in height are permitted within the required
front yard setback. For corner lots or double frontage lots, a
Ordinance -
7
fence between 42 inches and 6 feet in height is permitted
within one of the two front yard setbacks, so long as for
corner lots, this fence cannot extend past a line created by an
extension of the front wall of the dwelling. (See Figure
9.2751(13)(b)1.)
2. Fences up to 6 feet in height are permitted within the required
interior yard setback.
3. The height of fences that are not located within the required
setback areas is the same as the regular height limits of the zone.
4. Fences must meet the standards in EC 9.6780 Vision Clearance
Area.
Section 10.
The Small Lot entry, Duplex Lot entry, and Triplex Lot entry of the
Lot Area Minimum section, and the Lot Frontage and Lot Width standards in Table
9.2760 set forth in Section 9.2760 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide
as follows:
9.2760 Residential Zone Lot Standards.
The following Table 9.2760 sets forth residential
zone lot standards, subject to the special standards in EC 9.2761.
Table 9.2760 Residential Zone Lot Standards
(See EC 9.2761 Special Standards for Table 9.2760.)
R-1R-1.5R-2R-3R-4
Lot Area Minimum (1)
Small Lots (2) Per Cluster 2,250 2,250 2,250
Subdivision square feet square feet square feet
or PUD or per or per or per
Cluster Cluster Cluster
Subdivision Subdivision Subdivision
or PUD or PUD or PUD
Duplex Lots (in R-1, a duplex
8,000 -- -- -- --
lot[s] shall be indicated on the square feet
final subdivision plat [and
shall be developed] as
developable as a duplex.
Such lots may not be
created by a partition.
Alternatively, a duplex lot
[or] may be located on a
corner lot[s] that contains at
least 8,000 square feet.)
Ordinance -
8
Table 9.2760 Residential Zone Lot Standards
(See EC 9.2761 Special Standards for Table 9.2760.)
R-1R-1.5R-2R-3R-4
Triplex Lots (in R-1, lots shall 12,000 -- -- -- --
be indicated on the final square feet
subdivision plat as
developable [and shall be
developed] as a triplex. Such
lots may not be created by a
partition.)
Lot Frontage Minimum (1)
[20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet
Interior Lot 50 feet 20 feet
(9) (9) (9)
[20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet
Corner Lot 50 feet 20 feet
(9) (9) (9)
[20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet
Curved Lot 35 feet 20 feet
(9) (9) (9)
Cul-de-sac Bulb Lot 35 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
Residential Flag Lot (4)
1 Lot 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
2 to 4 Lots 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet
Rowhouse Lot 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
Lot Width Minimum (1)
[20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet
Interior Lot (7) 50 feet 20 feet
(9) (9) (9)
[20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet
Corner Lot 50 feet 20 feet
(9) (9) (9)
[20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet
Curved Lot 35 feet 20 feet
(9) (9) (9)
Cul-de-sac Bulb Lot 35 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
Residential Flag Lot (4) 50 feet -- --
Rowhouse Lot 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
Section 11.
Subsections (1) and (4) are amended, and new Subsections (9) and
(10) are added to Section 9.2761 of the Eugene Code, 1971, to provide as follows:
9.2761 Special Standards for Table 9.2760.
(1)
Lot Standards.
(a) In determining lot area in a residential zone, the area within a
public or private street or alley shall be excluded.
(b) Solar standards may impose a more restrictive lot standard. (See EC
9.2790 Solar Lot Standards.)
(c) Lot area, frontage, and width minimums may be modified with an
approved cluster subdivision in R-1 or Planned Unit Development (PUD)
in any zone.
(4)
No variances to residential flag lot standards are allowed. Minimum lot area
excludes the pole portion of the lot. Other residential flag lot standards also
apply. (See EC 9.2775 Residential Flag Lot Standards for R-1, R-2, R-3 and
Ordinance -
9
R-4.)
(9) Lot width and lot frontage minimums in R-3 and R-4 can be reduced to
20 feet as part of an approved site review plan, planned unit
development, or cluster subdivision. Unless otherwise approved
through a planned unit development or cluster subdivision, at no point,
for the entire extent of the lot, shall the side lot lines be less than 20 feet
apart.
(10) Alley Access Only Lots/Parcels can be created only through an
approved cluster subdivision in the R-1 zone or an approved planned
unit development in any zone.
Section 12.
The caption for Section 9.2775 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is
amended to provide as follows:
9.2775 Residential Flag Lot Standards for R-1.
, R-2, R-3 and R-4
Section 13.
The paragraph preceding Table 9.3310 in Section 9.3310 of the
Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows:
9.3310 S-E Elmira Road Special Area Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements.
The
following Table 9.3310 S-E Elmira Road Special Area Zone Uses and Permit
Requirements identifies those uses in the S-E zone that are:
(P) Permitted, subject to zone verification.
(SR) Permitted, subject to an approved site review plan or an approved final
planned unit development.
(C) Subject to an approved conditional use permit or an approved final
planned unit development.
(PUD) Permitted, subject to an approved final planned unit development.
(S) Permitted subject to zone verification and the Special Development
Standards for Certain Uses beginning at EC 9.5000.
(#) The numbers in ( ) in the table are uses that have special use limitations
that are described in EC 9.3311.
The examples listed in Table 9.3310 are for informational purposes and are not
exclusive. Table 9.3310 does not indicate uses subject to Standards Review.
Applicability of Standards Review procedures is set out at EC 9.8465.
Section 14.
The paragraph preceding Table 9.3810 in Section 9.3810 of the
Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows:
9.3810 S-RN Royal Node Special Area Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements.
The
following Table 9.3810 S-RN Royal Node Special Area Zone Uses and Permit
Requirements identifies those uses in the S-RN zone that are:
Ordinance -
10
(P) Permitted, subject to zone verification.
(C) Subject to an approved conditional use permit.
(S) Permitted subject to zone verification and the Special Development Standards
for Certain Uses beginning at EC 9.5000.
(SR) Permitted, subject to an approved site review plan or approved final planned
unit development.
(#) The numbers in ( ) in the table are uses that have special use limitations
described in EC 9.3811 Special Use Limitations for Table 9.3810.
Examples listed in Table 9.3810 are for informational purposes and are not
exclusive. Table 9.3810 does not indicate uses subject to Standards Review.
Applicability of Standards Review procedures is set out at EC 9.8465.
Section 15.
The paragraph preceding Table 9.3910 in Section 9.3910 of the
Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows:
9.3910 S-W Whiteaker Special Area Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements.
The
following Table 9.3910 S-W Whiteaker Special Area Zone Uses and Permit
Requirements identifies those uses in the S-W zone that are:
(P) Permitted, subject to zone verification.
(SR) Permitted, subject to an approved site review plan or an approved final
planned unit development.
(C) Subject to conditional use permit or an approved final planned unit
development.
(PUD) Permitted, subject to an approved final planned unit development.
(S) Permitted subject to zone verification and the Special Development
Standards for Certain Uses beginning at EC 9.5000.
(#) The numbers in ( ) in the table are uses that have special use limitations
that are described in EC 9.3911.
Examples of uses in Table 9.3910 are for informational purposes and not exclusive.
Table 9.3910 does not include uses subject to Standards Review. Applicability of
Standards Review procedures is set out at EC 9.8465.
Section 16.
Subsections (9)(c) and (11)(c) of Section 9.5500 of the Eugene
Code, 1971, are amended to provide as follows:
9.5500 Multiple-Family Standards.
(9) Open Space.
Open space that complies with Table 9.5500(9) and the
standards in this subsection (9) shall be provided unless exempt under other
provisions of this land use code.
(c) Open Space Credit.
1. An open space credit, not to exceed 25 percent of the total open
Ordinance -
11
space requirement, may be applied toward compliance with that
requirement, for developments that are located within one-quarter
mile of a public park as measured along the route of the
shortest existing public way or private street.
2. Required setback areas and areas required to comply with
perimeter parking lot landscape standards may be applied toward
the minimum open space requirements when the minimum
dimension of such space is 15 feet or greater.
(11) Site Access and Internal Circulation.
(c) Alley Access. Development sites with alley access, either at the rear
yard or along the side yard, shall use the alley to provide vehicle
access to the development site if either:
1. The alley right-of-way width is 20 feet for the length of the
alley between the development site and the street; or
2. The development site’s only street frontage is on an arterial
or collector street.
In the[se] instances described in 1. or 2., no direct access to the street,
(See Figure 9.5500(11)(b)
other than by the alley, shall be permitted.
Multiple-Family Driveways.)
In other instances, alley access is
optional.
Section 17.
Table 9.6410 in Section 9.6410 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is
amended by adding additional requirements for Multi-Family developments, to provide
as follows:
9.6410 Motor Vehicle Parking Standards.
Table 9.6410 Required Off-Street
Motor Vehicle Parking
UsesMinimum Number of Required Off-Street
Parking Spaces
Residential
Dwelling
[Multiple Family (3 or more dwellings on same lot) 1 per dwelling.
Multiple Family developments in the R-3 and R-1 space per studio or 1-bedroom unit
4 zones within the boundaries of the City 1.5 spaces/unit per 2-bedroom unit**
recognized West University Neighbors and 2 spaces/unit per 3-bedroom unit*
South University Neighborhood Associations.
*.5 spaces required for each additional
bedroom beyond 3 bedrooms
** Fractions of .50 are rounded up to the
next whole number.
Multiple Family – all other areas 1 per dwelling
Ordinance -
12
Section 18.
A new Subsection (6) is added to Section 9.6790 of the Eugene
Code, 1971, to provide as follows:
9.6790 Stormwater Management Manual.
In order to implement Section 9.6791 through
9.6797 of this code, the City Manager shall adopt in accordance with EC 2.019, City
Manager – Administrative and Rulemaking Authority and Procedures, a Stormwater
Management Manual. The Stormwater Management Manual may contain forms,
maps and facility agreements and shall include requirements that are consistent with
the following goals:
(6) Except as otherwise allowed by this land use code, allow disturbances
or development within drainage ways only when all of the following
conditions exist:
(a) The disturbance or development will not impede or reduce flows
within the drainage way;
(b) The disturbance or development will not increase erosion
downstream; and
(c) The constructed pipe system is sized to convey all of the runoff
from upstream watershed when the upstream watershed is
completely developed.
Section 19.
Subsection (3) of Section 9.6791 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is
amended to provide as follows:
9.6791 Stormwater Destination.
(3)Standards.
Stormwater drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed
according to adopted plans and policies, and in accordance with standards in
EC Chapters 6 and 7, and the stormwater destination provisions and the
facility design requirements set forth in the Stormwater Management Manual.
On-site infiltration is the preferred stormwater destination for
development in the River Road-Santa Clara Basin. An applicant proposing
a new development must submit documentation to the city showing the
stormwater destination into which the proposed development will be disposed.
The documentation must establish that the new development will be disposed
of into existing stormwater drainage facilities that, considering all
developments that have received tentative or final plan approval as of the date
the developer submits a complete application, have the capacity to handle the
stormwater runoff that will be generated by the proposed new development for
the flood control design storm, or, if the applicant cannot establish that existing
stormwater drainage facilities have such capacity, the applicant must
construct storm drainage facilities to accommodate the stormwater draining
from the proposed development.
Ordinance -
13
Section 20.
A new Section 9.7007 is added to the Eugene Code, 1971, to
provide as follows:
9.7007 Neighborhood/Applicant Meetings.
(1) This section applies to the following types of land use applications:
(a) Type II: Only tentative subdivisions and cluster subdivisions over
10 lots or those which include public street improvements;
(b) Type III: Only conditional use permits and tentative planned unit
developments;
(c) Type IV applications that are not city-initiated;
(d) Metro Plan amendments that are not city-initiated.
(2) Prior to the submittal of an application listed in subsection (1) above, the
applicant shall host a meeting for the surrounding property owners. The
purpose of this meeting is to provide a means for the applicant and
surrounding property owners and residents to meet to review the
proposal, share information and identify issues regarding the proposal.
The applicant may consider whether to incorporate solutions to these
issues prior to application submittal.
(3) The neighborhood/applicant meeting shall be held on a weekday
evening, starting no earlier than 5:00 p.m. and starting no later than 7:00
p.m., or on a weekend no earlier than 10:00 a.m. and no later than 6:00
p.m., at a location within the city that is in, or is as close as practicable
to, the boundaries of the city-recognized neighborhood association in
which the proposal is located, if any.
(4) If the subject property is located within the boundaries of a city-
recognized neighborhood association, the applicant must contact the
applicable neighborhood association by registered or certified mail,
proposing three possible dates and times for the meeting. The
neighborhood association should reply to the applicant within 14 days
and specify on which of the proposed three suggested dates the
meeting should be held. If the neighborhood association does not reply
to the applicant’s letter within 14 days, the applicant may schedule the
neighborhood meeting on any one of the three proposed dates without
further delay.
(5) The applicant shall mail notice of the meeting:
(a) At least 14 days and no more than 28 days prior to the meeting;
(b) To:
1. Owners and occupants of properties within 300 feet of the
subject property for Type II and IV applications and to owners
and occupants within 500 feet of the property for a Type III
application or a Metro Plan amendment;
2 Any city-recognized neighborhood associations whose
boundaries are within 300 feet of the subject property;
3. The city planning director; and
4. The city engineer; and
(c) That states the date, time and location of the meeting and briefly
discusses the nature and location of the proposal.
(6) Failure of a property owner or occupant to receive notice shall not
Ordinance -
14
invalidate the neighborhood/applicant meeting procedure.
(7) The applicant shall post notice of the meeting by posting a waterproof
sign on the subject property at least 14 days before the meeting. The
notice, containing the information described in (5)(c) above, shall be
supplied by the applicant.
(8) The applicant shall prepare and keep meeting notes identifying the
major points that were discussed and expressed, and a sign-in sheet
identifying the persons attending.
(9) The applicant is required to hold one meeting prior to submitting an
application for a specific site, but may hold additional meetings if
desired.
(10) If an applicant fails to include in its application the materials described
in EC 9.7010, the application shall be deemed incomplete.
(11) Applications shall be submitted to the city within 180 days of the
neighborhood/applicant meeting. If an application is not submitted in
this time frame, the applicant shall be required to hold a new
neighborhood/applicant meeting.
Section 21.
Section 9.7010 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as
follows:
9.7010 Application Filing.
Applicants shall be submitted on a form approved by the city
manager, be accompanied by a fee established pursuant to EC Chapter 2, and be
signed by the property owner, unless the applicant is a public agency, in which case
the signature of the property owner is not required. Application materials shall
address each of the criteria and standards applicable to the proposed use including
any requested adjustments to standards as provided in provisions beginning at EC
9.9015. For applications described at EC 9.7007(1), the application shall
include the following materials related to the neighborhood/applicant meeting:
(1) The list of persons to whom notice was mailed pursuant to EC 9.7007(5)
and a signed statement that notice was posted and mailed to those on
the list;
(2) A copy of the notice; and
(3) A copy of the meeting notes and sign-in sheet described at EC 9.7007(8).
Section 22.
The “Partition” and “Subdivision” entries in Table 9.7055 of Section
9.7055 of the Eugene Code, 1971 are amended to provide as follows:
9.7055 Applications and Review Authorities.
Table 9.7055 Applications and Review
Authorities, lists applications and the review authorities for the decision and the
appeal of the decision.
Table 9.7055 Applications and Review Authorities
R = Recommendation, D = Decision Maker, A = Appeal Review Authority
Ordinance -
15
ApplicationTypePlanning Hearings Historic Planning City
DirectorOfficialReview CommissionCouncil
Board
Partition:
- Tentative Plan II D A
[II] I
- Final Plat D [A]
Subdivision:
- Tentative Plan II D A
[II] I
- Final Plat D [A]
Section 23.
Table 9.7105 in Section 9.7105 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is
amended to provide as follows:
9.7105 Type I Application Requirements and Criteria Reference.
The following
applications are reviewed under the Type I process according to the requirements
and criteria set forth for each application as reflected in the beginning reference
column in Table 9.7105.
Table 9.7105 Type I Application Requirements and Criteria
Type I ApplicationsBeginning Reference
Historic Landmark, Removal of Designation EC 9.8150
Partition – Final Plat EC 9.8225
Property Line Adjustment EC 9.8400
Subdivision – Final Plat EC 9.8550
Temporary Manufactured Dwelling Hardship Permit EC 9.8600
Temporary Manufactured Dwelling Hardship Permit - Renewal EC 9.7120(2)
Vacation of an Unimproved Public Easement EC 9.8700
/WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone – Map or Zone Error EC 9.4960(2)
Section 24.
The entries for “Partition” and “Subdivision” in Table 9.7205 of
Section 9.7205 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide as follows:
9.7205 Type II Application Requirements and Criteria Reference.
The following
applications are reviewed under the Type II review process according to the
requirements and criteria set forth for each application as reflected in the beginning
reference column in Table 9.7205:
Table 9.7205 Type II Application Requirements and Criteria
Type II ApplicationsBeginning Reference
Partition:
Ordinance -
16
Table 9.7205 Type II Application Requirements and Criteria
Type II ApplicationsBeginning Reference
- Tentative Plan EC 9.8200
[- Final Plat] [EC 9.8225]
Subdivision:
- Tentative Plan EC 9.8500
[- Final Plat] [EC 9.8550]
Section 25.
The entries for “Partition” and “Subdivision” in Table 9.7230 of
Section 9.7230 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide as follows:
9.7230 Expiration.
(1)
The planning director’s approval of an application shall expire in 12 months,
18 months, or 36 months from the effective date of approval, depending upon
the type of land use application as specified in Table 9.7230 Expiration of
Type II Application Approvals, or as provided in subsections (2) through (9) of
this section. If an application approval has expired according to any of the
conditions stated in subsections (2) through (9), the original application
approval is revoked and a new application must be filed.
Table 9.7230 Expiration of Type II Application Approvals
Application12 months18 months36 months
Partition:
- Tentative Plan X
[- Final Plat (same as Tentative Plan expiration)]
Subdivision:
- Tentative Plan X
[- Final Plat (same as Tentative Plan expiration)]
Section 26.
A new Subsection (16) is added to Section 9.8320 of the Eugene
Code, 1971, to provide as follows:
9.8320Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria- General
. The hearings
official shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a tentative PUD application
with findings and conclusions. Decisions approving an application, or approving
with conditions shall be based on compliance with the following criteria:
(16) For property with the /SR Site Review Overlay Zone, the PUD complies
with any additional site-specific criteria that were specified at the time
the /SR designation was applied to the property.
Ordinance -
17
Section 27.
Section 9.8430 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as
follows:
9.8430Applicability
. Site review provisions shall be applied when any of the following
conditions exist:
(1)
Property is zoned with the /SR overlay zone and the proposal would result in
either of the following:
(a) New development of vacant sites (excluding partitions and any
development that consists only of new or expanded parking areas).
(b) An expansion of 20 percent or more of the total existing building square
footage on the development site.
(2)
The proposed use on the property is identified as a use which requires site
review under other provisions of this land use code and the proposal would
result in either of the following:
(a) New development of vacant sites (excluding development that consists
only of new or expanded parking areas).
(b) An expansion of 20 percent or more of the total existing building square
footage on the development site.
(3)
The application proposes needed housing, as defined by State statutes.
Applications proposing needed housing shall be reviewed through the Type II
site review procedures utilizing the criteria at EC 9.8445 Site Review Approval
Criteria - Needed Housing unless the applicant specifically request in the
application that the city apply the criteria at EC 9.8440 Site Review Approval
Criteria - General.
In lieu of site review, an application that falls within (1), (2), or (3) above, may
obtain approval through the Planned Unit Development process. No
development permit shall be issued by the city prior to approval of the site review
application, or the final planned unit development application.
Section 28.
Section 9.8555 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as
follows:
9.8555 Applicability of Subdivision, Final Plat Applications.
A subdivision final plat
application follows a Type [II] I process. Applications for final plat approval cannot
be submitted unless the subject property received tentative plan approval and any
approval conditions required prior to submittal of the final plat have been met.
Section 29.
The definition of “Noncommercial dog kennel” set forth in Section
4.330 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows:
4.330 Animal Control - Definitions
. For purposes of sections 4.330 to 4.500 of
this chapter, the following words and phrases mean:
Ordinance -
18
Noncommercial dog kennel
. An establishment or premises where [three]
four or more dogs, over six months of age, are kept or maintained, whether
by owners of the dogs or by persons providing facilities and care, and
whether or not for compensation, not including the temporary keeping
of one additional dog for up to 6 months in any 12-month period. No
more than two of the dogs shall be used for breeding. The term does not
include any animal hospital. For purposes of this definition, if the
“premises” consists of a lot that contains a main dwelling and a
secondary dwelling unit, the “premises” means the lot.
Section 30.
A new Figure 9.2751(13)(b)1. Fences, as attached hereto is hereby
adopted; Figure 9.0500 Building Height Calculation is hereby amended and replaced
with the attached Figure 9.0500 Building Height Calculation; and Figure 9.5500(11)(b)
Multiple-Family Driveways, is hereby amended and replaced with the attached Figure
9.5500(11)(b) Multiple-Family Driveways; and they shall be incorporated with other
similar maps and figures in the Eugene Code, 1971.
Section 31.
The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the
City Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained
herein or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971 to the provisions added,
amended, or repealed herein.
Section 32.
The legislative findings attached as Exhibit A hereto are adopted in
support of this Ordinance.
Section 33.
Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in the
Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of
its passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, or upon the date of its
acknowledgment as provided by ORS 197.625, whichever date is later.
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
Ordinance -
19
____ day of ______________, 2008 ____ day of ______________, 2008
_____________________________ _____________________________
City Recorder Mayor
00196780.DOC;1
Ordinance -
20
EXHIBIT A
Findings
Code Amendment Eugene Code Section 9.8065 requires that the following approval criteria (in
bold and italics) be applied to a code amendment:
(1) The amendment is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals adopted by the Land
Conservation and Development Commission.
Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity
for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
The City has acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement which insure the opportunity for citizens
to be involved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements for such involvement. The
action taken did not amend the citizen involvement program. The process for adopting these
amendments complied with Goal 1 because it is consistent with the citizen involvement provisions.
Specifically, the Planning Commission held a series of public work sessions followed by separate public
hearings held by the Planning Commission and City Council. Based on this information, the process
followed is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 1.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a
basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual basis for
such decisions and actions.
The Eugene Land Use Code specifies the procedure and criteria that were used in considering these
amendments to the code. The record shows that there is an adequate factual base for the amendments.
The Goal 2 coordination requirement is met when the City engages in an exchange, or invites such an
exchange, between the City and any affected governmental unit and when the City uses the information
obtained in the exchange to balance the needs of the citizens. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination
requirement, the City engaged in an exchange about the subject of these amendments with all of the
affected governmental units. Specifically, the City provided notice of the proposed action and
opportunity to comment to Lane County, Springfield and the Department of Land Conservation and
Development.
There are no Goal 2 Exceptions required for these amendments. Therefore, the amendments are
consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands. To preserve agricultural lands.
The amendments are for property located within the urban growth boundary and do not affect any land
designated for agricultural use. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 3 does not apply.
Goal 4 - Forest Lands. To conserve forest lands.
The amendments are for property located within the urban growth boundary and do not affect any land
designated for forest use. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 4 does not apply.
Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources. To conserve open space
and protect natural and scenic resources.
OAR 660-023-0250(3) provides: Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in
consideration of a PAPA unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this
section, a PAPA would affect a Goal 5 resource only if:
(a)The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan or
land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to
address specific requirements of Goal 5;
(b)The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant
Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or
(c)The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted
demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in the
amended UGB area.
These amendments do not create or amend the citys list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a
=
code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific
requirements of Goal 5, do not allow new uses that could be conflicting uses with a significant
Goal 5 resource site and do not amend the acknowledged UGB. Therefore, Statewide Planning
Goal 5 does not apply.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and land Resource Quality. To maintain and improve the quality of the air,
water and land resources of the state.
Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air,
water and land from impacts from those discharges. The amendments to not affect the Citys
=
ability to provide for clean air, water or land resources. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 6
does not apply.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. To protect life and property from
natural disasters and hazards.
Goal 7 requires that local government planning programs include provisions to protect people and
property from natural hazards such as floods, land slides, earthquakes and related hazards,
tsunamis and wildfires. The Goal prohibits a development in natural hazard areas without
appropriate safeguards. The amendments do not effect the Citys restrictions on development in
=
areas subject to natural disasters and hazards. Further, the amendments do not allow for new
development that could result in a natural hazard. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 7 does not
apply.
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs. To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and
visitors, and where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities
including destination resorts.
Findings 2
Goal 8 ensures the provision of recreational facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily
concerned with the provision of those facilities in non-urban areas of the state. The plan
amendments do not effect the citys provisions for recreation areas, facilities or recreational
=
opportunities. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 8 does not apply.
Goal 9 - Economic Development. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a
variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregons citizens.
=
The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR 660, Division 9) requires cities to
evaluate the supply and demand of commercial land relative to community economic objectives.
The Eugene Commercial Land Study (October 1992) was adopted by the City of Eugene as a
refinement of the Metro Plan, and complies with the requirements of Goal 9 and its
Administrative Rule. The amendments do not impact the supply of industrial or commercial
lands. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9.
Goal 10 - Housing. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential land
for needed housing units. Although some of the amendments address residential development
standards, the land use code amendments do not impact the supply or availability of residential
lands included in the documented supply of “buildable land” that is available for residential
development as inventoried in the acknowledged 1999 Residential Lands Study. Therefore, the
amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 10.
Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development.
The amendments do not effect the Citys provision of public facilities and services. Therefore,
=
Statewide Planning Goal 11 does not apply.
Goal 12- Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
The Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) contains the following requirement:
(1) Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use
regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed
land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards
(e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility....
(2) A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it:
(a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility;
(b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system;
(c) Allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access
Findings 3
which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility;
or
(d) Would reduce the performance standards of the facility below the minimum
acceptable level identified in the TSP
Due to the minor nature of these amendments, the amendments do not affect the provision of safe,
convenient and economic transportation systems and do not significantly affect any transportation
facilities.
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation. To conserve energy.
The amendments do not impact energy conservation. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 13
does not apply.
Goal 14 - Urbanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban
land use.
The amendments do not affect the Citys provisions regarding the transition of land from rural to
=
urban uses. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 14 does not apply.
Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway. To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural,
scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the
Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.
The amendments to not contain any changes that affect the regulation of areas within the
Willamette River Greenway. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 15 does not apply.
Goal 16 through 19 - Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean
Resources.
There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related to the property
effected by these amendments. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the amendments will
not affect compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19.
(2) The amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and
applicable adopted refinement plans.
The code amendments include minor changes to the Land Use Code that address issues raised by
the community that are primarily related to residential development and lot configuration
standards, without raising significant policy issues. Given the minor nature of these amendments,
there are no relevant Metro Plan policies affected by this action. Furthermore, the amendments
do not address any adopted refinement plans. Therefore, no refinement plan is affected by this
action.
Findings 4
(3) The amendment is consistent with EC 9.3020 Criteria for Establishment of an S Special
Area Zone, in the case of establishment of a special area zone.
The amendments do not establish a special area zone. Therefore, this criterion does not apply to
these amendments.
Findings 5
ö×ÎÙ×É
ö××È
øÅ×ÐÐÓÎÕ
öÍÊ ÙÍÊÎ×Ê ÐÍÈÉ
Ö×ÎÙ×É ÇÌ ÈÍ ª ÓÎ
Ô×ÓÕÔÈ ÛÐÐÍÅ×Ø
ÅÓÈÔÓÎ ÍÎ× ÖÊÍÎÈ
ÃÛÊØ É×ÈÚÛÙÑ ÉÍ
ÐÍÎÕ ÛÉ ÈÔ× Ö×ÎÙ×
ØÍ×É ÎÍÈ ×ÄÈ×ÎØ
ÌÛÉÈ Û ÐÓÎ×
ÙÊ×ÛÈ×Ø Úà ÛÎ
×ÄÈ×ÎÉÓÍÎ ÍÖ ÈÔ×
ÖÊÍÎÈ ÅÛÐÐ ÍÖ ÈÔ×
ØÅ×ÐÐÓÎÕ
ÓÎÙÔ Ö×ÎÙ×
Ì×ÊÏÓÈÈ×Ø
öÊÍÎÈ ãÛÊØ é×ÈÚÛÙÑ
ÅÓÈÔÓÎ ÖÊÍÎÈ
ÃÛÊØ É×ÈÚÛÙÑ
úÇÓÐØÓÎÕ ô×ÓÕÔÈ ùÛÐÙÇÐÛÈÓÍÎ
ôÓÕÔ×ÉÈ ìÍÓÎÈ ÍÖ êÍÍÖ
ùÛÉ×
ïÓØìÍÓÎÈ ÍÖ ÈÔ×
ôÓÕÔ×ÉÈ éÐÍÌ×
ö××È
ö××È
õÊÛØ×
ð×ÉÉ ÈÔÛÎ
ö××È
õÊÛØ× ê×Ö×Ê×ÎÙ× øÛÈÇÏ ðÓÎ×
ùÛÉ×
ôÓÕÔ×ÉÈ ìÍÓÎÈ ÍÖ êÍÍÖ
ïÓØìÍÓÎÈ ÍÖ ÈÔ×
ôÓÕÔ×ÉÈ éÐÍÌ×
ö××È
õÊÛØ×
õÊÛØ× ê×Ö×Ê×ÎÙ×
øÛÈÇÏ ðÓÎ×
ö××È
õÊÛØ×
ATTACHMENT B
Summary of Proposed Minor Code Amendments
Code
Topic Description
Sections
1. Allowances for Dogs in The Eugene Code currently considers the keeping of three or 9.0500
Residential & Commercial more dogs to constitute a kennel. Kennels are not allowed in 9.2741(2)(a)
Zones/Definition of Kennel residential or commercial zones, essentially limiting pet owners 4.330
in these zones to no more than two adult dogs. This
amendment would change the definition of “kennel” and the
definition of “noncommercial dog kennel” to keeping four or
more dogs on the premises, thereby allowing up to three dogs
on residential and commercial properties, and provide an
allowance for the temporary keeping of one additional dog. In
addition, this amendment would limit the maximum number
of dogs to three per the lot containing a main dwelling and the
secondary dwelling unit to limit impacts on adjacent
neighbors.
2. Fence Heights for The Eugene Code treats all private property abutting a street 9.2751(13)(b)
Corner/Double Frontage Lots in as a front yard setback. In residential zones, for corner lots
Residential Zones and other lots with more than one street frontage, fence
heights are limited 42-inch (3 ½ feet) within the 10 foot front
yard setback along both street facing frontages. This
amendment would add an exception to allow fences up to 6-
feet tall within one of the two front yard setbacks of a
residential corner lot or double-frontage lot. For corner lots,
the fence up to 6-feet tall on the one side is limited to an area
that encloses the rear yard.
3. Residential Density Calculations For calculating maximum net density in the residential zones, 9.2751(1)(c)
the Eugene Code provides an allowance to round up to the
next whole number. For instance, for a 5,000 square foot lot
in the R-2 Medium Density Residential zone, the maximum
net density calculates to 3.2 dwelling units (based on the
maximum net density of 28 dwelling units per acre allowed per
code). Under the current provisions, the maximum density is
rounded up to allow for 4 units (which equates to a density of
34.8 dwelling units per acre).
This amendment to the residential zone development
standards would retain the round up provision for lots or
development sites 13,500 square feet or greater in area.
However, for lots or development sites less than 13,500 square
feet in area, maximum density would be rounded up to the
next whole number for fractions of .75 or above and rounded
down for fractions below .75.
4. Building Height Measurement in 9.0500
The height of buildings in residential zones is currently
Residential Zones measured at the mid-point of the eaves, so as to not to 9.2751(3)(b)
discourage or penalize those building designs with steeper
pitched roofs, which are often associated with traditional styles
(e.g., tudor). However, this form of measurement has caused
concern in that it does not represent the peak of the roof. The
intent of this amendment is not to lower building heights, but
rather to measure heights in a different manner.
This amendment to the definition of building height would
require that building height be measured from the highest
point of the roof for buildings in residential zones. Maximum
building height standards would remain the same (30 feet in R-
1, 35 feet for R-1.5 and R-2, 50 feet in R-3 and 120 feet in R-
4). Because of the differences in measurements between the
average height and the highest point, this amendment allows
for an increase in height for steeper pitched roofs, thereby not
reducing actual building heights currently allowed in the
residential zones. This amendment would retain the current
method of measuring building height at the mid-point in all
other zones (such as commercial and industrial).
5. Building Height Transitions This amendment was proposed by City Council as a means to 9.2751(3)(c)
within South University address concerns of allowable building heights in R-3 Limited
Neighborhood Association High Density and R-4 High Density Residential zones that are
proximal to R-1 Low Density Residential zones, and to reflect
a height transition with the R-1 Low Density Residential
zoned areas. Current maximum allowable building heights are
30 feet in R-1, 50 feet in R-3 and 120 feet in R-4.
This amendment would only apply to the R-3 and R-4 zoned
land just south of the University of Oregon, within the area
bound by Hilyard Street to the west, Agate Street to the east,
E. 18th Avenue to the north and E. 20th Avenue to the south.
Building heights in the R-3 and R-4 zones would be restricted
to 35 feet for any portion of the building located within 50 feet
from the abutting boundary of, or directly across an alley
from, land zoned R-1, and building heights in the R-4 zone
would be restricted to 50 feet for any portion of a building
located within 175 feet of land zoned R-3, and to 75 feet for
any portion of a building greater than 175 feet and up to225
feet from land zoned R-3.
6. Multi-Family Development/Open The multi-family development standards prescribe minimum 9.5500(9)(c)
Space Credit for Nearby Parks open space requirements for developments and include a
credit for developments that are located within one-quarter
mile of a public park. Currently this distance is measured from
the development site directly to the park in a straight line.
This amendment would clarify that this distance is measured
along the route of the shortest established public way or
private street, which are terms defined in the code.
7. Required Parking for Multi-This amendment was proposed by City Council as a means to Table 9.6410
Family Developments in West address concerns of excessive demand for on-street parking by
University and South University multi-family development in R-3 and R-4 zones with a
Neighborhood Associations substantial number of dwelling units that have three or more
bedrooms. A similar amendment was suggested by
community members.
This amendment would increase the required parking ratio for
multi-family developments in the R-3 Limited High Density
Residential and R-4 High Density Residential zones that are
south and west of the University of Oregon, and within the
Summary of Proposed Minor Code Amendments 2
boundaries of the West University Neighbors and the South
University Neighborhood Association. The new standard
would require a minimum of one parking space for the first
bedroom and an additional .5 parking spaces per each
additional bedroom. Fractions would be rounded up to the
next whole number. Currently, one space is required for each
dwelling unit or apartment, regardless of the number of
bedrooms.
8. Stormwater Destination: The stormwater provisions of the Eugene Code do not require 9.6790
Encourage On-Site Infiltration as a or encourage selection of a particular stormwater destination, 9.6791
Preferred Approach and Restrict Fill instead allowing a developer to choose any existing destination
and Disturbance of Drainage Ways that has the capacity. This amendment would indicate that on-
site infiltration is the preferred stormwater destination for
development in the River Road-Santa Clara Basin. This
amendment would also add a provision to the land use code to
restrict fill of drainage ways under the same conditions as
listed in the Stormwater Management Manual.
9. Flag Lots Definition and This amendment would strengthen and clarify the existing the 9.0500
Development Standards definition of a “flag lot.” Additionally, the amendment would 9.2761(4)
clarify that the existing R-1 Low Density Residential flag lot 9.2775
standards also apply to new flag lots in the R-2, R-3 and R-4
zones. Currently the code is unclear on flag lot standards for
the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones. The flag lot standards include
requirements for minimum driveway paving widths and
materials, building setbacks, use restrictions and land division
regulations.
10. Lot Width and Lot Frontage This amendment would revert the lot width and lot frontage 9.2760
Standards minimums for lots in the R-2 Medium Density Residential, R-9.2761(9)
3 Limited High Density Residential and R-4 High Density Table 9.2760
Residential zones (currently 20 feet) to those in effect prior to
the land use code update of 2001 (35 feet). Lesser widths
would be allowed, down to 20 feet, subject to an approved site
review plan, planned unit development, or cluster subdivision.
Also, unless otherwise approved through a planned unit
development or cluster subdivision, at no point, for the entire
extent of the lot, shall the side lot lines be less than 20 feet
apart.
11. Add Definition of Alley Access This amendment adds a definition or “alley access only 9.0500
Only Lot/Parcel and Clarify lot/parcel” to define a lot without street access, clarifies that 9.2761(10)
Existing Prohibition the creation of alley access only lots/parcels is prohibited in 9.5500(11)(c)
residential zones unless approved through a cluster
subdivision in the R-1 zone or a planned unit development in
any residential zone, and amends the multiple-family standards
to allow development sites to take direct access to a street, if
the abutting alley is less than the minimum width required (20
feet) to serve as primary access or if the development site does
not have its only frontage on an arterial or collector street.
The intent of this amendment is to strengthen and clarify the
City Council’s previous direction to prohibit alley access
lots/parcels.
12. Exclude Area within Private This amendment would clarify that the portion of a lot that 9.2751(1)(c)
Streets from Residential Lot Areas includes private or public streets or alley is not included in the 9.2761(1)
Summary of Proposed Minor Code Amendments 3
lot area calculations in residential partitions or subdivisions,
and clarify that when calculating density, the area within public
and private streets and alleys is excluded.
13. Duplex and Triplex Lots on R-1 The Eugene Code allows a limited percentage of duplex and Table 9.2760
Subdivision Plats triplex lots to be incorporated in subdivisions in the R-1 Low 9.2741(4)
Density Residential zone. These lots must be designated as
duplex and triplex lots on final subdivision plats and are
required to be developed accordingly. This amendment
clarifies that duplex and triplex lots can only be created in
subdivision plats, not partitions, and clarifies that the
designation entitles an owner to develop as duplex or triplex
rather than mandates it. (i.e. a single family residence is
possible).
14. Provide for Early Neighbor and This amendment would provide affected neighborhood 9.7007
Neighborhood Input into associations and neighbors an opportunity for early input on 9.7010
Development Process significant development proposals, allowing neighbors to raise
concerns and issues early in the design process, as opposed to
after an application has been submitted.
This amendment would require applicants to host a meeting
for surrounding property owners and residents and
neighborhood association, prior to the submittal of a
significant development proposal (tentative subdivisions and
cluster subdivisions over 10 lots or those which include public
street improvements, conditional use permits, tentative
planned unit developments, refinement plan amendments and
metro plan amendments). The purpose of this meeting is to
provide a means for the applicant and neighbors to meet to
review a development proposal and to share information and
concerns regarding the project.
The applicant would be required to host the meeting prior to
submitting a land use application, and would be required to
submit documentation verifying that proper notice of the
meeting was mailed and posted, who attended the meeting and
the topics discussed.
This amendment is in alignment with the City Council’s
Neighborhood Empowerment Initiative. Specifically, Action
Item #11 of the Neighborhood Initiative Action Plan is to
“shift involvement of neighborhood associations to be earlier
in the land use process.”
15. Final Subdivision and Partition Currently, final subdivision and partition plats are processed Table 9.7055
Plats to follow Type I Process according to the Type II application procedures in response to Table 9.7105
previous case law. This amendment would require final Table 9.7205
subdivision and partition plats to follow the Type I Table 9.7230
Application Procedures, consistent with changes made to state 9.8555
law in 2004.
16. Eliminate Site Review Eugene Code requires site review approval for certain uses or 9.2160
Requirements for Projects with for projects on sites with the /SR Site Review overlay zone. 9.2450
Approved Planned Unit When a planned unit development is also required by the 9.2630
Development code, or proposed by an applicant, an applicant is required to 9.2683
submit both site review and planned unit development 9.2740
Summary of Proposed Minor Code Amendments 4
applications. Given that a planned unit development involves 9.3310
a more comprehensive review than a site review, this 9.3810
amendment would eliminate the redundant requirement for an 9.3910
approved site review for projects that have an approved 9.8320(16)
planned unit development. 9.8430
17. Add Definition of Residential This amendment to add a definition of “residential character” 9.0500
Character was proposed by City Council as a means to mitigate impacts
from incompatible infill. This new definition would only be
invoked during a land use application process where the
applicable approval criteria require consistency with adopted
plan policies and where these policies contain the term
“residential character.”
18. Add Growth Management The City Council directed that the Growth Management 9.0200
Policies to the Purpose Section of Policies be incorporated into the purpose section of Chapter 9
Chapter 9 to serve as policy direction. Based on City Council direction
as well as the adopting resolution (Resolution No. 4554), these
policies shall not be used in determining whether the City shall
approve or deny individual land use applications.
Summary of Proposed Minor Code Amendments 5
ATTACHMENT C
Below is the neighborhood’s revised proposal for minor code amendment #5 Building Height
Transitions in South University Neighborhood Association. The text of the original amendment is in
bold
. Proposed revision is highlighted.
9.2751 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2750.
(3)
Building Height.
(a) Except as provided below, [I]in the R-3 and R-4 zone, the maximum
building height shall be limited to 30 feet for that portion of the building located
within 50 feet from the abutting boundary of, or directly across an alley from,
land zoned R-1.
(c) For that area bound by Hilyard Street to the west, Agate Street to the
thth
east, East 18 Avenue to the north and East 20 Avenue to the south:
1. In the R-3 zone, the maximum building height shall be limited to 35
feet for that portion of the building located within 50 160 feet from
the abutting boundary of, or directly across an alley from, land
zoned R-1.
2. In the R-4 zone, the maximum building height shall be limited to 35
feet for that portion of the building located within 50 feet from the
abutting boundary of, or directly across an alley from, land zoned
R-1. It shall be limited to 50 feet for that portion of the building
located within 175 feet from land zoned R-3, and shall be limited to
75 feet for that portion of the building located within 176 feet and
225 feet of land zoned R-3.
ATTACHMENT D
M I N U T E S
Public Hearing
Eugene Planning Commission
Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall—777 Pearl Street, Eugene, Oregon
May 21, 2008
6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Randy Hledik, President; Phillip Carroll, Vice President; Heidi Beierle, Ann
Kneeland, Phillip Carroll, Anthony McCown, Richard Duncan, John Lawless,
members; Alissa Hansen, Lisa Gardner, Steve Nystrom, Planning and
Development Department.
Mr. Hledik convened the Eugene Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. Planning Commission
members and staff introduced themselves, and expressed the appreciation of the Planning
Commission and the community’s interest in this matter.
Mr. Hledik said the Planning Commission would conduct a public hearing to solicit public input
regarding the Minor Lane Use Code Amendments (MCA). He reminded all in attendance that the
Planning Commission would not be taking action on the MCA that evening, but that the Planning
Commission would be meeting June 2, 2008 from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. to consider making
recommendations to the City Council regarding the MCA.
I. PUBLIC HEARING ON MINOR CODE AMENDMENTS (CA 07-5)
Minor Code
Amendments to the Land Use Code (Chapter 9).
Mr. Hledik opened the public hearing and called for the staff report.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 21, 2008 Page 1
ATTACHMENT D
Ms. Hansen provided an overview of the proposed Minor Land Use Code Amendments. She noted
that since May 12, 2008, staff had received over 40 letters of testimony, all of which had been
forwarded to the Planning Commission. She commented specifically on a letter received in regard
to MCA No. 12 from Marilyn Mohr which requested that alleys be added to that particular MCA to
make it clear that the area within public streets as well as alleys was excluded from lot areas. She
said that staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the affected code sections include
alleys. In addition to confirming the June 2 date of the Planning Commission deliberations, she
said that there would be a City Council work session meeting on June 9, 2008 to give the City
Council and overview of the proposed code amendments, followed by a City Council public
hearing on June 16, 2008, followed by the City Council’s action or decision on July 14, 2008.
Mr. Hledik noted there were no questions from Planning Commissioners and opened the public
hearing.
th
Erik Swinney
, 1097 West 8 Avenue, Eugene, spoke with regard to MCA No. 2, and pitched a
methodology whereby fence heights might be determined by applying a 35 foot vision clearance
triangle overlaid on property corners in which nothing could be higher than 30 inches.
Ann Simas
, 3635 Waterbrook Way, Eugene, spoke with regard to MCA No. 14 and said that, as it
involved development on the outer perimeter of the city, she would like to see notification on Type
II and Type IV development changed from 300 to 500 feet. She cited examples from North
Coburg Road where property was changed from R-1 Low Density Residential to C-2 Community
Commercial for a medical condo building. She said that current notification specifications do not
provide adequate public safety, in terms of sign requirements.
Sue Prichard
, 2671 Emerald Street, Eugene, speaking as Co-chair of the Infill Compatibility
Standards Task Team, which formed a committee to review the MCA’s, reiterated testimony
previously submitted on March 18, 2008 and May 15, 2008 to the Planning Commission which
concerned MCA items 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14. She said that all of the Task Team’s
recommendations to the Planning Commission were commensurate with staff recommendations
with the exception of MCA No. 18 regarding required residential parking permit areas. She said
that the Task Team encouraged the Planning Commission to forward the MCA to the City Council
as recommended by the staff and modified by the Task Force’s committee.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 21, 2008 Page 2
ATTACHMENT D
th
Paul Conte
, 1461 West 10 Avenue, Eugene, said that all 12 sustainable neighborhood
amendments should be recommended for adoption on their merits. He submitted written testimony
refuting the position of the Lane County Homebuilders Association (LCHA).
th
Rene Kane
, 254 West 14 Avenue, Eugene, speaking as the chair of Jefferson West Side
Neighbors, a member of the Neighborhood Leaders Council, and member of the Multi Dwelling
Infill Subcommittee of the Infill Compatibility Task Team, urged the Commission to approve the
set of amendments that specifically protect neighborhoods from the destabilizing effects of infill
and development.
Carolyn Schmidt
, 1344 Manzana Street, Eugene, commented on the proposed changes to the
Code in Section 9 regarding fence heights in residential zones. She thanked the commission for
including the proposed changes, and said that with the smaller lot sizes in the City of Eugene it can
be difficult to situate a house and maintain adequate privacy and security. She said that allowing a
six foot fence as described in the MCA would allow for additional privacy and security. She said
that the existing code contained various inconsistencies in the current enforcement of fence height
standards, and was unclear in its current definition of what constituted a front yard.
Paul Farnsworth
, 1344 Manzana Street, Eugene, spoke regarding the proposed fence height
changes as described in MCA No. 2. He described the current characteristics of his home and how
they might be improved by the proposed MCA.
Carolyn Jacobs
, 2040 Agate Street, Eugene, spoke regarding MCA No. 5 regarding building
height transitions within the South University Neighborhood and said that without the proposed
amendments to provide a reasonable transition between R-1 and R-3 and R-4 zones, family homes
would be looking at very high structures very close to existing homes, leading to a general
deterioration of the neighborhood itself.
Al Couper
, 2258 Harris, Eugene, spoke regarding MCA No. 5 regarding building height
transitions within the South University Neighborhood. He said that he believed that current
building codes provided for a perfect storm of wildly inappropriate building development. He said
that under the current Code and under the building height transitions specified in Oregon’s clear
and objective standards laws, building permits were issued so quickly as to preclude adequate
notice to property owners. He said this is truly a minor amendment in that it does not impose any
particular zoning pattern, nor does it specifically change any the zoning classification of any
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 21, 2008 Page 3
ATTACHMENT D
properties. He said that he spoke to a number of other city planners in Oregon, and that none of
those cities allowed any buildings as high as currently allowed in Eugene without some sort of
adequate transitioning element.
Mike Russo
, 1975 Potter, Eugene, speaking in support of the proposed amendments, said that his
neighbors were in favor of reasonable development for both students and residents in University
neighborhoods and that such development is essential for maintaining the character of the City. He
said that the proposed amendments were essential for meeting the goals of the City’s Growth
Management Policy No. 6.
th
Lauren Hulse
, 1256 East 20 Avenue, Eugene, spoke regarding MCA No. 5 regarding building
height transitions within the South University Neighborhood. She encouraged approval of the
proposed amendment. She publicly thanked developer Dean Pickett for his efforts to encourage
reasonable development within the South University Neighborhood.
Bill Spurling
, 1958 Potter, Eugene, spoke regarding MCA No. 5 regarding building height
transitions within the South University Neighborhood. He encouraged approval of the proposed
amendment, and showed a diagram of the street on which his property is located in order to
graphically demonstrate how current building codes might adversely affect his property.
Joshua Welch
, 1995 Grant Street, Eugene, spoke regarding MCA No. 1 regarding the number of
dogs allowed by residents within City limits. He encouraged approval of the proposed amendment,
and cited the closing of the Lane County Animal Shelter and his experiences with the Humane
Society as his reasons for his support. He further encouraged the Planning Commission to raise the
limit for the number of dogs allowed to at least four or five.
Lydia Deane
, 505 Sweet Gum Lane, Eugene, spoke regarding the proposed fence height changes
as described in MCA No. 2. She said that neither the current Code nor the proposed revisions fully
addressed her concerns regarding fence heights. She said that the nature of public versus private
space, as well as issues regarding urban infill requirements and how codes alone cannot dictate the
taste of a neighborhood should be considered in determining how fence heights should be properly
regulated within the City.
David K. Calderwood
, 28104 Spencer Creek Road, Eugene, spoke regarding MCA No. 1
regarding the number of dogs allowed by residents within City limits. He encouraged approval of
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 21, 2008 Page 4
ATTACHMENT D
the proposed amendment, and further encouraged the Commission to completely eliminate any
limitations on the number of dogs allowed. He cited current the city of Calgary, Canada as an
example of the benefits of eliminating limits on the number of dogs allowed.
Tom Walter
, 2863 Riverwalk Loop, Eugene, spoke in his capacity as a homebuilder, and refuted
the position that the proposed amendments could in any way be considered minor and stated that
issues of parking and building heights were by their very nature major and not minor amendments
with respect to current City building codes. He said that any amendment limiting building heights
to no more than 35 feet would mean that he could no longer build his homes, which are 37 feet in
height.
Daniel Hill
, 4765 Village Plaza Loop, Suite 200, Eugene, spoke in his capacity as an architect with
Arbor South Architecture and a general contractor with Arbor South Construction. He said that he
is also a member of the Infill Compatibility Standards Committee. He said that his Committee was
currently involved in studying aspects of how compatibility affects neighborhoods. He urged that,
in needing to properly evaluate issues of density within the City, the Infill Compatibility Task
Force be allowed to complete their work.
Pauline Hutson
, 1025 Taylor Street, Eugene, spoke in favor of the 12 proposed sustainable
amendments. She said that Eugene has a very small number of comfortable, affordable rental
housing units, and that the 12 amendments should be passed in order to provide more affordable
housing for people and families of modest incomes.
Jozef Siekiel-Zdziewicki
, 1025 Taylor Street, Eugene, spoke in favor of the 12 proposed
sustainable amendments. He said that he has been in the construction business in Eugene for the
last 17 years, and that this is the only town he has ever been in that uses the mid-roof to determine
the height of a building.
th
David Tobin
, 1055 West 18 Avenue, Eugene, said that, as a 43 year resident of the City of
Eugene, he was not against density, but believed that it had the potential to create highly
concentrated student ghettos in Eugene, robbing his neighborhood of its character.
Laura Langdon
, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, speaking as the Director of Government Affairs
for the Homebuilders Association of Lane County, said that her organization would like the
Planning Commission to keep the record regarding MCA Nos. 5 and 7 open for one week. She
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 21, 2008 Page 5
ATTACHMENT D
said that those proposed amendments were contrary to both the Metro Plan policies for housing and
also to the LCDC Goal 10 administrative rule for housing, which are mandatory standards with
respect to City codes. She said that the proposed amendments MCA Nos. 5 and 7, being contrary
to the Metro Plan and Goal 10 standards, would effectively downzone properties within the City
while further discouraging future building development. She asked that MCA Nos. 5 and 7 be
removed from the list of minor code amendments under consideration by the Planning
Commission.
Katrina Wester
, 3550 Sterling Woods Drive, Eugene, spoke in favor of the removal of MCA Nos.
5 and 7 from the list of minor code amendments under consideration by the Planning Commission.
She said that the proposed amendments MCA Nos. 5 and 7, in limiting the density of University
neighborhoods, would effectively downzone properties within the City.
Mike Gansen
, 362 Highway 99 North, Eugene, speaking as the current president of the Oregon
Homebuilders Association, requested that MCA Nos. 5, 7 and 8 be removed from the list of minor
code amendments under consideration by the Planning Commission. He said that these
amendments were by no means minor in that they made drastic, contradictory, and highly
controversial changes to existing Code and urban growth policies. He strongly urged the Planning
Commission to not pass MCA Nos. 5, 7 and 8.
Mike Dotson
, 3005 Calla Street, Eugene, speaking as the project manager for Gansen
Construction, spoke in favor of the removal of MCA Nos. 5, 7 and 8 from the list of minor code
amendments under consideration by the Planning Commission. He said that these amendments
were by no means minor in that they made drastic, contradictory, and highly controversial changes
to existing Code and urban growth policies. He said that the issues involved in those amendments
require a stronger review process and he strongly urged the Planning Commission to not pass MCA
Nos. 5, 7 and 8.
Gerry Keener
, 1034 Custer Court, Eugene, as a representative of Central Presbyterian Church
th
located at 555 East 15 Street, spoke regarding the proposed parking requirement changes as
described in MCA No. 7. He said that, currently, the large number of apartment complexes in
close proximity to the church has adversely affected the availability of parking for his church’s
congregation. He urged the Planning Commission to fully consider the impact of any amendments
involving parking with organizations such as his church.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 21, 2008 Page 6
ATTACHMENT D
th
Ronald Smith
, 335 West 38 Avenue, Eugene, speaking as a member of the Homebuilders
Association, spoke in favor of the removal of MCA Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 11 from the list of minor code
amendments under consideration by the Planning Commission. He said that the manner in which
these amendments addressed density issues was contraindicative to reasonable expectations of
future city planning needs as interpreted by the City Council and by the State of Oregon. He said
that the amendments in question benefited only one neighborhood and did not take into account the
well being of the City as a whole.
Lorraine Still
, P.O. Box 1213; Creswell, Oregon, spoke regarding MCA No. 1 regarding the
number of dogs allowed by residents within City limits. She encouraged approval of the proposed
amendment, and spoke on behalf of a friend and City resident who had once lost one of her two
dogs and adopted another before finding her missing dog. She stated that under current City codes,
her friend would not be allowed to keep her third dog.
Ed McMahon
, 1233 Hilo Drive, Eugene, speaking as executive vice president of the Lane County
Homebuilders Association, spoke in favor of the removal of MCA Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11
from the list of minor code amendments under consideration by the Planning Commission. He said
that these amendments were not at all minor and would have a dramatic impact on City policy. He
said MCA Nos. 5 and 7 in particular would drastically reduce the amount of much needed campus
housing in the University area, in addition to lowering property values and increasing emissions in
the area.
Kris Ward
, 1134 Monroe Street, Eugene, spoke in favor of MCA No. 11 regarding the definitions
and applications of alley access within City limits. She said that the alleys near her R-2 zoned
property are not for permanent regular use or residential access, and that the proposed amendment
would prevent future developments from creating and using alleyways for purposes for which they
were clearly not intended.
Dan Neal
, 1361 Pearl Street, Eugene, spoke in favor of the removal of MCA No. 7 from the list of
minor code amendments under consideration by the Planning Commission. He said that the
parking requirements proposed by the amendment would seriously impede development of badly
needed student housing, as well as other similar multi-family housing, in the University area
including that of the COHO Townhouses project of which he is one of the developers. He strongly
urged the Planning Commission to not pass MCA No. 7.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 21, 2008 Page 7
ATTACHMENT D
Susannah Meininger
, 1418 Lawrence, Unit A; Eugene, speaking of behalf of the Housing Policy
Board (HPB) requested that the Planning Commission leave the recode open so that should could
enter into the record the HPB’s statement regarding the proposed minor code amendments. She
said that she also believed that sustainability as it pertains to development within the City requires
increased density.
Julie Smith
, 4750 Village Plaza Loop, Eugene, speaking in her professional capacity as a
mortgage broker in the City of Eugene, spoke in favor of the removal of MCA Nos. 5, 7 and 8 from
the list of minor code amendments under consideration by the Planning Commission. She said that
she believed that the amendments in question would all reduce the amount of buildable land within
the City and adversely affect the overall economy of Eugene businesses.
Brian McBeth
, 33938 Martin Road; Cresswell, Oregon, speaking in his professional capacity as a
homebuilder in the City of Eugene, spoke in favor of the removal of MCA Nos. 5, 7 and 8 from the
list of minor code amendments under consideration by the Planning Commission. He said that
these amendments were not at all minor and would have a dramatic impact on City policy. He said
that these proposals regarding building height, parking, and stormwater drainage were overly
restrictive and not in the best interest of the City as a whole.
th
Galen Howard
, 810 East 20 Avenue; Eugene, spoke in favor of the proposed fence height
changes as described in MCA No. 2. He said the current Code restrictions regarding fence heights
do not allow him adequate privacy in his home. He said that the City code restricting fence heights
is already one of the most frequently violated building codes and said that it was unreasonable not
to pass the proposed amendment.
Diana Robertson
, 871 River Road, Eugene, spoke on behalf of Shelter Animal Resource Alliance
regarding MCA No. 1 regarding the number of dogs allowed by residents within City limits. She
said that the number of dogs allowed to residents in the City should be raised to at least three. She
encouraged approval of the proposed amendment, and said that the amount of lost licensing
revenue should the proposed amendment not pass would be significant.
Becky Riley
, 202 Hawthorne Avenue, Eugene, spoke on behalf of the River Road Community
Organization Board in general support of the sustainable neighborhood amendments, and
particularly in favor of the stormwater drainage restrictions as described in MCA No. 8. She said
that much of the original intent of her community’s recommendations regarding stormwater
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 21, 2008 Page 8
ATTACHMENT D
restrictions had been watered down from their previous iterations as the code amendment process
had progressed.
Jerry Finigan
, 1250 Irvington Drive, Eugene, spoke in favor of the stormwater drainage
restrictions as described in MCA No. 8. He said that the condition of streams and other natural
drainage systems in the River Road-Santa Clara Basin area had deteriorated significantly over the
last 43 years and cited the housing development in the area as one of the main contributory factors
in this deterioration.
Carol Titus
, 29936 Kelso Avenue, Eugene, spoke regarding MCA No. 1 regarding the number of
dogs allowed by residents within City limits. She said that the number of dogs allowed to residents
in the City should be raised to three or even more. She said that raising the number of allowed
dogs would offset the negative impact of the closing of the Lane County Animal Shelter, as well as
improving the general health and well being of the animal population in Eugene. She said that
raising the limit would also encourage greater compliance with animal licensing regulations and
that the revenue generated by such licensing would be significant.
Gary W. Cook
, Box 3765; Eugene, Oregon 97403, spoke in favor of the proposed fence height
changes as described in MCA No. 2. He said the current Code restrictions regarding fence heights
do not allow him adequate protection from deer infestation on and near his property. He showed
the Planning Commission photos of the protective deer fencing structures on his property in order
to demonstrate that they do not constitute a nuisance or similar defacement.
Kate Perle
, 4740 Wendover Street, Eugene, spoke in general support of the sustainable
neighborhood amendments, and particularly in favor of the stormwater drainage restrictions as
described in MCA No. 8. She said that for the survival and well being of her community, the
natural stormwater management system needed to be enhanced and preserved, not continually and
progressively compromised by development.
th
Steven Baker
, 360 East 15 Avenue, Eugene, spoke regarding MCA No. 7 regarding the parking
restrictions as they pertain to development in the West University neighborhood. He said that he
wished to correct public misperceptions regarding this amendment, and reminded the planning
commission that the staff had increased the parking requirements beyond what was originally
recommended by various community organizations in 2007. He urged that MCA No. 7 be revised
to more accurately reflect the original recommendations previously submitted; specifically that
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 21, 2008 Page 9
ATTACHMENT D
multi-family housing units with two or less bedrooms require one parking unit, three bedrooms
require one and a half parking units, four bedrooms require two parking units, and an additional
one half parking unit for each additional bedroom.
John Archer
, 90564 Alvadore Road, Eugene, spoke regarding MCA No. 1 regarding the number
of dogs allowed by residents within City limits. He said that he supported this amendment for the
sole reason that unwanted and unlicensed dogs that might be in excess of the currently allowed
number are often abandoned near his rural area property. He said the number of dogs allowed to
residents in the City should be raised to three or even more.
th
Drix
, 307½ East 14 Avenue, Eugene, said that he was confused which was smaller, an element or
an atom, but that he did know that those two together created a unique molecule known as Eugene.
He said that he knew that Planning Commission had a difficult job in interpreting issues regarding
infill. He said that the issue of parking was new to him, and that there are ways of solving
problems related to these issues, but that we just don’t know those ways yet. He said that he is
very proud of the University of Oregon, and the City of Eugene itself.
th
Charlie Larson
, 2220 West 27 Avenue, Eugene, thanked the Commission for taking the time to
listen to all the different points of view throughout the public hearing. He urged the commission to
think inventively and be open to compromise with respect to solving issues of parking and density
within the City.
Sondra Arrache
, 92575 City View, Eugene, spoke regarding MCA No. 1 regarding the number of
dogs allowed by residents within City limits. She said that the number of dogs allowed to residents
in the City should be raised to three or perhaps even removing the restriction altogether. She said
that of all the cities she has lived in, that Eugene is the only one that had a limit on the number of
allowed dogs.
Mr. Hledik, noting that there were no further members of the public present who wished to speak,
closed the public hearing and noted that, in response to the previous requests, the public record
would be kept open until 5:00PM on Tuesday, May 27, 2008. He then opened the meeting for the
Planning Commission to ask questions to staff.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 21, 2008 Page 10
ATTACHMENT D
Mr. Duncan asked for clarification from the staff regarding the process by which the proposed
minor code amendments had been developed by staff. He requested a copy of any policy or
guideline documents that had been used to develop the minor code amendments.
Mr. Carroll, with regard to MCA No. 7, asked the staff for an analysis of the original parking
suggestions, specifically how they were less than what was currently proposed, that were submitted
to staff by the various community organizations that provided input to staff in developing the minor
code amendments.
Mr. Hledik, with regard to MCA No. 7, specifically requested an analysis of Mr. Baker’s original
community recommendation, as well as an analysis of any other similar recommendations used in
development of the minor code amendment. He also asked the staff for specific figures on the
current number of existing parking spaces within the University neighborhood areas.
Mr. Carroll, with regard to MCA No. 11, said that he was confused as to how the diagram that staff
had submitted pertained to the language of the proposed amendment. He asked the staff for
concrete examples of how the widths of streets versus alleys were determined within City limits, as
well as how a developer might view the advantages or disadvantages in considering street or alley
access with regard to specific lots.
Mr. Carroll, with regard to MCA No. 8, asked the staff to clarify what the current stormwater
management requirements are, as well as how those requirements come into play with respect to
development. Mr. Hledik seconded Mr. Carroll’s request to staff for this information.
Mr. McCown asked the staff to more closely examine the proposed MCA Nos. 5, 7 and 8 in order
to definitively determine whether they were in fact minor or not.
Mr. Lawless, with regard to the minor code amendments involving fence heights, asked staff to
clarify the Code language and provide a diagram showing a duplex layout with the proposed fence
amendment.
Mr. Hledik, with regard to the minor code amendments involving fence heights, asked staff to
ensure that the proposed amendment addressed all of the concerns raised during the public hearing.
Mr. Lawless, with regard to MCA No. 5, asked the staff to clarify the history of zoning, building
height and density standards within the University neighborhood area.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 21, 2008 Page 11
ATTACHMENT D
Mr. Duncan, with regard to MCA No. 1, asked staff to clarify their definition of a kennel, and
asked staff to consider creating a special classification of foster dogs to include in the proposed
amendment. He asked staff to research the policies of Calgary, Canada—as mentioned during the
public hearing—and report those findings back to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Beierle asked staff for specific numbers as to how many lots would be affected by the minor
code amendments involving residential density.
Ms. Kneeland, with regard to MCA Nos. 5 and 7, asked staff for confirmation about the
applicability of the Metro Plan zoning requirements that were referenced in the public hearing, as
well as the impact on Goal 10 and the buildable lands inventory that had been done.
Mr. Hledik, with regard to MCA No. 4, asked staff for diagrams to clarify how the proposed
amendment would specifically be applied in determining building heights.
Mr. Hledik asked staff to evaluate the Infill Compatibility Study Task Team MiCAP
Recommendations of March 18, 2008 and the four footnotes contained therein, to ensure that those
recommendations were properly addressed by the proposed minor code amendments.
Mr. Hledik, hearing no further questions or comments from the Planning Commission or staff,
reminded the Commission of their deliberations meeting on June 2, 2008 at 11:00 a.m.
Mr. Hledik thanked those present and adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m.
(Recorded by Wade Hicks)
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 21, 2008 Page 12
ATTACHMENT E
S U M M A R Y M I N U T E S
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
th
Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10 Avenue
June 2, 2008
11:00 a.m.
PRESENT: Randy Hledik, President; Phillip Carroll, Vice President; Heidi Beierle, Rick
Duncan, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Lisa
Gardner, Alissa Hansen, Steve Nystrom, Mike McKerrow, Planning and
Development Department; Peggy Keppler, Gary McNeel, Public Works; Lauren
Hulse, Carolyn Jacobs, Rene Kane, Al Couper, Sue Prichard, Jerry Finigan,
Marilyn Mohr, Laura Langdon, Terry Connolly, Bill Aspegren, Charles Snyder,
guests.
ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio.
Mr. Hledik convened the Eugene Planning Commission.
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—March 18 and 31, 2008, and April 21 and 22, 2008
Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved to approve the minutes for
March 18 and April 21, 2008 as presented, and the March 31 and April 22,
2008 minutes as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 1
ATTACHMENT E
II. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: Minor Code Amendments
Mr. McCown, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved to recommend approval of
the Consent Items, Minor Code Amendments 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, and
18. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
Mr. Carroll moved to recommend approval of Amendment 3—Residential
Density Calculations. There was no second to the motion.
Mr. Duncan, seconded by Ms. Kneeland, moved to recommend approval
of Amendment 3—Residential Density Calculations as indicated in the
staff report, with a modification from .75 to .50, showing half would be
above and half would be below. He further moved that the issue be
forwarded to the Infill Compatibility Standards Task Team for further
analysis by staff and Task Team to return to the Planning Commission
with a recommendation.
Mr. Duncan withdrew the motion. Ms. Kneeland withdrew the second to
the motion.
Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to recommend approval of
Amendment 3—Residential Density Calculations and further consideration
by the Infill Compatibility Standards Task Team. The motion passed 5:2,
with Commissioners Carroll, Lawless, Hledik, Beierle and McCown
voting in favor and Commissioners Duncan and Kneeland voting in
opposition of the motion.
Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved to recommend approval of
Amendment 4—Building Height Measurement in Residential Zones
extended to seven feet rather than five feet. The motion passed
unanimously, 7:0.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 2
ATTACHMENT E
Mr. McCown, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved to recommend approval of
Amendment 8—Stormwater Destination: Encourage On-Site Infiltration
as a Preferred Approach and Restrict Fill and Disturbance of Drainage
Ways, with the removal of 9.6790(6)(c) from the proposed language.
The motion passed 5:2, with Commissioners Beierle, McCown, Lawless,
Carroll and Kneeland voting in favor and Commissioners Hledik and
Duncan voting in opposition.
Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved to recommend approval of
Amendment 11—Add Definition of Alley Access Only Lot/Parcel and
Clarify Existing Prohibition, as amended by Mr. Carroll, to include
language regarding alley access being optional where abutting street was
not an arterials or collector. Ms. Beierle offered a friendly amendment that
Amendment 11 be forwarded to the Access Management Study for further
analysis. Mr. Duncan and Mr. McCown accepted the friendly amendment.
The motion passed 6:1, with Commissioners Beierle, Duncan, Hledik,
Kneeland, Lawless and McCown voting in favor, and Commissioner
Carroll voting in opposition.
Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved to recommend approval of
Amendment 17—Add Definition of Residential Character. The motion
passed unanimously, 7:0.
Mr. McCown, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to recommend approval of
Amendment 1—Allowances for Dogs in Residential and Commercial
Zones/Definition of Kennel, with an allowance for the temporary keeping
of dogs. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to recommend approval of
Amendment 2—Fence Heights for Corner/Double Frontage Lots in
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 3
ATTACHMENT E
Residential Zones, with the added provision that the fence height limit be
moved to the front of the house line.
The motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
Mr. McCown, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to recommend approval
of Amendment 12—Exclude Area within Private Streets from Residential
Lot Areas with the inclusion of alleys. The motion passed unanimously,
7:0
Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved that the Planning
Commission recommend for Amendment 5 – Building Height Transitions
within South University Neighborhood Association, that the City Council
not adopt the proposed amendment at this time and defer the topic to the
Infill Compatibility Standards project for further consideration to allow for
a more comprehensive review and analysis of the issues and policy
choices, as well as identification of long term solutions. However, in the
event the City Council decides to adopt an amendment related to this topic,
the Planning Commission would recommend the adoption of the newest
proposal from the neighborhood. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved that the Planning
Commission recommend for Amendment 7 – Required Parking for Multi-
Family Developments in West University and South University
Neighborhood Associations, that the City Council not adopt the proposed
amendment at this time and defer the topic to the Infill Compatibility
Standards project for further consideration to allow for a more
comprehensive review and analysis of the issues and policy choices, as
well as identification of long term solutions. However, in the event the
City Council decides to adopt an amendment related to this topic, the
Planning Commission would recommend the ordinance following the
West University revised parking plan.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 4
ATTACHMENT E
The motion failed 3:4, with Commissioners Hledik, McCown, and Lawless
voting in favor, and Commissioners Carroll, Kneeland, Duncan, and
Beierle voting in opposition.
Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved that the Planning
Commission recommend for Amendment 7 – Required Parking for Multi-
Family Developments in West University and South University
Neighborhood Associations, that the City Council not adopt the proposed
amendment at this time and defer the topic to the Infill Compatibility
Standards project for further consideration to allow for a more
comprehensive review and analysis of the issues and policy choices, as
well as identification of long term solutions. The motion passed
unanimously, 7:0.
III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
B. Other Items from Commission
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 5
ATTACHMENT E
M I N U T E S
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
th
Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10 Avenue
June 2, 2008
11:00 a.m.
PRESENT: Randy Hledik, President; Phillip Carroll, Vice President; Heidi Beierle, Rick Duncan,
Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Lisa Gardner, Alissa
Hansen, Steve Nystrom, Mike McKerrow, Planning and Development Department;
Peggy Keppler, Gary McNeel, Public Works; Lauren Hulse, Carolyn Jacobs, Rene Kane,
Al Couper, Sue Prichard, Jerry Finigan, Marilyn Mohr, Laura Langdon, Terry Connolly,
Bill Aspegren, Charles Snyder, guests.
ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio.
Mr. Hledik convened the Eugene Planning Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no one wishing to make public comment.
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—March 18 and 31, 2008, and April 21 and 22, 2008
March 18, 2008—no corrections.
March 31, 2008—Mr. Lawless offered the following correction to the Summary Minutes, Page 1:
Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved that the Planning Commission
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 1
ATTACHMENT E
recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Water Quality Protective
Waterways code amendments and related zone changes, including suggestions and
clarifications discussed by the Commission.
The motion passed 4:3, with
Commissioners Beierle, Carroll, Kneeland and McCown voting in favor, and
Commissioners Duncan, Hledik and Lawless voting in opposition.
April 21, 2008—no corrections.
April 22, 2008—Mr. Lawless offered the following correction, page 4, paragraph 3:
Mr. Lawless asked if there were other habitat types worthy of protection within the UGB
or had had they all been inventoried or studied at this point.
Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved to approve the minutes for March
18 and April 21, 2008 as presented, and the March 31 and April 22, 2008 minutes
as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
II. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: Minor Code Amendments
Ms. Hansen provided the staff report. She distributed and reviewed a document entitled Planning
Commission Deliberations Minor Code Amendments, which provided an outline for structuring the
deliberations. It grouped the amendments into four categories: consent items, clarifications, minor
revisions and policy choices. She reviewed the ground rules for the discussion that the Commission had
used during the Phase 1 amendment process.
?
Consent Items
Mr. Hledik stated the Commission had previously discussed the Consent Items in great detail and no one
had raised any issues prior to today’s meeting.
Mr. McCown, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved to recommend approval of the
Consent Items, Minor Code Amendments 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18. The
motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 2
ATTACHMENT E
?
Clarifications
Amendment 11—Add Definition of Alley Access Only Lot/Parcel and Clarify Existing Prohibition
Mr. Carroll expressed concern about the potential impact to the pedestrian environment and to traffic flow
with new street accesses being created. Additionally, as the City moved to increase density and look for
infill opportunities, the street tree stock would be increasingly relied upon to provide valued
neighborhood amenities. He was hesitant to recommend the amendment as it was currently written and
offered additional language related to the 12 foot maximum driveway width, one way driveways and alley
access abutting arterials that was recorded by staff for inclusion in the final draft document. He was
concerned that creating new driveways increased the amount of impervious surface, as well as creating
conflicts with neighbors when driveways and parking areas abutted.
Mr. Nystrom stated the proposed amendment provided greater flexibility to applicants, and the suggested
changes would limit that flexibility. He opined the suggestion of one-way driveways could have
unintended consequences related to paving and circulation concerns, adding traffic safety access and
egress issues could be addressed with existing tools.
Mr. Lawless could not support Mr. Carroll’s suggestion. He thought with consideration of required space
for street trees, utility meters, and driveways, there should be a way within reason to accommodate all of
those items. He was concerned on the proposed limitation on a one-way driveway that could create
problems that were counterproductive to the amount of paving.
Responding to Ms. Kneeland’s question of was there a City policy on adding curb cuts to arterials; Ms.
Keppler said the City had a general policy on new connections on City streets. Furthermore, a Public
Works department advisory committee (DAC) for an access management study was in process. The
strategy in access management was to limit the number of accesses and to control their locations related
to intersections. She added code amendments for the access management update would be brought to the
Planning Commission in January 2009.
Mr. Carroll stated many alleys were not improved, particularly those in older neighborhoods, and
improvements to alleys was a public works rather than a land use issue. He thought it important to use
alleys more effectively and cautioned against creating more impervious surfaces prior to adoption of the
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 3
ATTACHMENT E
code amendments. He asserted although staff thought one-way driveways were not workable, he could
not support the amendment without that requirement.
Ms. Kneeland shared Mr. Carroll’s concerns and supported adding the language regarding alleys not
abutting on arterials and collectors.
Ms. Gardner emphasized it was more appropriate for some of the issues to be addressed in a broader
context through the access management study because there were broader transportation and safety issues
involved. She added that Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) access management policy
which would apply to State roads.
Mr. Hledik acknowledged there was consensus to include language regarding alley access being optional
where abutting street was not an arterials or collector. He noted concerns about a 12 foot maximum
driveway width requirement and one way driveways and asked that they included in the Public Works
access management update process.
Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved to recommend approval of
Amendment 11—Add Definition of Alley Access Only Lot/Parcel and Clarify
Existing Prohibition, as amended by Mr. Carroll, to include language regarding
alley access being optional where abutting street was not an arterial or collector.
Ms. Beierle offered a friendly amendment that Amendment 11 be forwarded to
the Access Management Study for further analysis. Mr. Duncan and Mr.
McCown accepted the friendly amendment. The motion passed 6:1, with
Commissioners Beierle, Duncan, Hledik, Kneeland, Lawless and McCown
voting in favor, and Commissioner Carroll voting in opposition.
Amendment 3—Residential Density Calculations
Mr. Duncan briefly reviewed a document received from Paul Conte. Mr. Duncan stated up to 3,000 units
could be lost if Mr. Conte’s proposal for rounding in R-2 to .75 was adopted, but he did not know what an
appropriate number would be.
Ms. Kneeland was disappointed in the inability to quantify the impact and shared Mr. Duncan’s concern.
She supported taking a more modest step as suggested by Mr. Duncan and could not support
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 4
ATTACHMENT E
recommending .75.
Mr. Lawless concurred that a more modest approach should be taken.
Mr. Carroll was comfortable with rounding to .65.
Mr. McCown could accept .65 until further analysis was completed through the Infill Compatibility
Standards (ICS) process.
Ms. Hansen said .75 that appeared in the table of the white paper on this topic, and came from the
community involvement process.
Mr. Hledik was in favor of moving forward with the proposed amendment language of .75 and asking the
ICS Task Team to study it in further depth.
Ms. Gardner said the community worked closely with Ms. Hansen in developing the recommendation.
The community group wanted some interim protection while the ICS Task Team worked through its
process.
Mr. Carroll requested that the Commission vote individually on the proposed amendments to enable
Commissioners to register their descent on the individual issues.
Mr. Carroll moved to recommend approval of Amendment 3—Residential
Density Calculations. There was no second to the motion.
Mr. Duncan, seconded by Ms. Kneeland, moved to recommend approval of
Amendment 3—Residential Density Calculations as indicated in the staff report,
with a modification from .75 to .50, showing half would be above and half would
be below. He further moved that the issue be forwarded to the Infill
Compatibility Standards Task Team for further analysis by staff and Task Team
to return to the Planning Commission with a recommendation.
Mr. Lawless was concerned with rejecting the number that had been recommended by the community.
He said it needed to go to the ICS Task Team for further analysis. Ms. Kneeland agreed with Mr.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 5
ATTACHMENT E
Lawless.
Mr. Duncan withdrew the motion. Ms. Kneeland withdrew the second to the
motion.
Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to recommend approval of
Amendment 3—Residential Density Calculations and further consideration by the
Infill Compatibility Standards Task Team. The motion passed 5:2, with
Commissioners Carroll, Lawless, Hledik, Beierle and McCown voting in favor
and Commissioners Duncan and Kneeland voting in opposition of the motion.
Amendment 4—Building Height Measurement in Residential Zones
Responding to questions from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Hansen said R-4 was not included in this proposed
amendment because the maximum building height in R-4 was 120 feet, and there were concerns about
increased height. Mr. Hledik noted consensus to his proposal to allow buildings in R-1, R-2, and R-3 to
go to an additional 7 feet for steeper sloped roofs. Ms. Hansen clarified this did not change the allowable
building height as compared to current building height provisions.
Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved to recommend approval of
Amendment 4—Building Height Measurement in Residential Zones extended to
seven feet rather than five feet. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
Amendment 8—Stormwater Destination: Encourage On-Site Infiltration as a Preferred Approach and
Restrict Fill and Disturbance of Drainage Ways
The Commission had a brief discussion regarding the relationship between the Eugene Code and the
Stormwater Management Manual, and how issues moved from policy to code. Commissioners Carroll,
McCown, and Kneeland preferred that the language be included in the code. Commissioner Duncan
preferred that the language remain in the manual. Both Mr. McCown and Mr. Duncan requested that
Section 18, 9.6790(6)(c) be deleted if the language was codified, as it was recently removed from the
manual. Mr. Lawless preferred that the language not be duplicated in the code and manual.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 6
ATTACHMENT E
Mr. McCown, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved to recommend approval of
Amendment 8—Stormwater Destination: Encourage On-Site Infiltration as a
Preferred Approach and Restrict Fill and Disturbance of Drainage Ways, with
the removal of 9.6790(6)(c) from the proposed language.
Mr. Hledik intended to vote no because he saw having some of the language in the manual and some of
the language in the code as burdensome.
Mr. Duncan said he would vote no for the same reason.
The motion passed 5:2, with Commissioners Beierle, McCown, Lawless, Carroll
and Kneeland voting in favor and Commissioners Hledik and Duncan voting in
opposition.
Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved to recommend approval of
Amendment 17—Add Definition of Residential Character. The motion passed
unanimously, 7:0.
The Planning Commission took a short break.
?
Minor Revisions
Amendment 1—Allowances for Dogs in Residential and Commercial Zones/Definition of Kennel
Ms. Hansen stated Mr. Duncan had asked for consideration to allow foster/temporary dogs to be allowed
in residential and commercial zones based upon public testimony. She reviewed the proposed language
presented in a May 29, 2008 AIS.
Mr. McCown, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to recommend approval of
Amendment 1—Allowances for Dogs in Residential and Commercial
Zones/Definition of Kennel, with an allowance for the temporary keeping of
dogs. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
Amendment 2—Fence Heights for Corner/Double Frontage Lots in Residential Zones
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 7
ATTACHMENT E
Ms. Hansen reviewed the testimony received at the public hearing regarding fence height.
Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to recommend approval of
Amendment 2—Fence Heights for Corner/Double Frontage Lots in Residential
Zones, with the added provision that the fence height limit be moved to the front
of the house line.
Mr. Lawless still had concerns about diminishing usable private property on corner duplex lots.
The motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
Amendment 12—Exclude Area within Private Streets from Residential Lot Areas
Ms. Hansen stated that testimony had been received with the person who had initiated this amendment,
who asked that alleys be added to the language.
Mr. McCown, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to recommend approval of
Amendment 12—Exclude Area within Private Streets from Residential Lot Areas,
with the inclusion of alleys. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0
?
Policy Choices
For amendments 5 and 7, Ms. Hansen reviewed the outline provided to the commission and discussed the
options before the commission on these particular amendments:
A. Recommend that the City Council not adopt the proposed amendment at this time and defer the
topic to the Infill Compatibility Standards project for further consideration to allow for a more
comprehensive review and analysis of the issues and policy choices, as well as identification of
long term solutions.
B. Recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment, as contained in the ordinance,
and forward the topic to the Infill Compatibility Standards project for further consideration to allow
for a more comprehensive review and analysis of the issues and policy choices, as well as
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 8
ATTACHMENT E
identification of long term solutions.
C. Recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment, as revised by the neighborhood,
and forward the topic to the Infill Compatibility Standards project for further consideration to allow
for a more comprehensive review and analysis of the issues and policy choices, as well as
identification of long term solutions.
D. Recommend that the City Council not adopt the proposed amendment at this time and defer the
topic to the Infill Compatibility Standards project for further consideration to allow for a more
comprehensive review and analysis of the issues and policy choices, as well as identification of
long term solutions. However, in the event the City Council decides to adopt an amendment related
to this topic, the Planning Commission would recommend the adoption of [either the proposal in
ordinance or a revised proposal].
Mr. Hledik recalled previous Planning Commission discussions in which there was some concern that
Amendment 5—Building Height Transitions within South University Neighborhood Association and
Amendment 7—Required Parking for Multi-Family Developments in West University and South
University Neighborhood Associations were not minor code amendments.
Mr. Duncan concurred with Mr. Hledik’s recollections.
Mr. Carroll said he considered Amendment 5 to be a minor code amendment, but he did not consider
Amendment 7 to be a minor code amendment.
Mr. McCown agreed with Mr. Carroll, noting his concern about Metro Plan implications.
Mr. Hledik said this got at the heart of Growth Management Policy (GMP) 6, balancing preservation of
neighborhood character with density, as well as other GMPs. Neighborhood preservation had been
identified as an important issue with the West University Neighbors. The dilemma was there were
density ranges others had come to rely upon who would be impacted by this proposal. This was a policy
issue that needed to be addressed by the City Council rather than the Planning Commission. Since the
City Council gave the issue to the Planning Commission for development of a recommendation, he asked
that the Council give consideration to the ICS Task Team that was also studying this issue. This was
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 9
ATTACHMENT E
bigger than a minor code amendment, in that it carried significant City policy issues. He favored a
revised motion for option D
Mr. Carroll agreed with Mr. Hledik.
Mr. McCown was leaning towards option D. He was concerned about the precedent for the City Council
placing a moratorium on development.
th
Ms. Gardner said this issue arose from a City Council work session regarding the 19 Avenue and Alder
Street development. She said use of a moratorium as a strategy for limiting building height had been
presented to the Council.
Mr. Duncan thanked staff for the historic document on building heights and density in the R-3 and R-4
zones prepared as a resource for the Planning Commission.
Mr. Hledik noted the South University and West University neighbors had done a significant amount of
detail work. Although he preferred to forward the issue to the ICS Task Team, he suggested the Planning
Commission could forward the neighbors proposal to the Council in the form of a revised Amendment 5.
He further suggested that the Planning Commission forward the West University Neighborhood revised
proposal for Amendment 7, which clearly represented the neighborhood preference for preserving
neighborhood character. He added a caveat should be included that would explain the effect it would
have on potential density lost that could be realized in the neighborhood.
Amendment 5—Building Height Transitions within South University Neighborhood Association
Mr. Duncan agreed this was major policy decision that needed a City Council decision.
Mr. Lawless generally agreed this was a policy issue required a City Council decision that needed to be
balanced against the GMPs.
Mr. Carroll supported a modest reduction in density if the result would be a better built environment, but
the tools were not available to make that judgment. He recommended eliminating some of the setbacks.
He recommended going 100 feet from the R-3 zoned land with a 50 foot height restriction, then going to
120 feet, focusing on the pedestrian experience and the residences on the south side of the street.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 10
ATTACHMENT E
Mr. McCown said this was not the appropriate process for the proposed amendments. He preferred that it
be forwarded to the ICS Task Team that had been established to review just this type of issue. If the City
Council preferred to move forward on amendment, the option provided by the neighborhood was the best
option since the issue had initiated at the neighborhood level requesting City Council action.
Mr. Duncan supported Mr. McCown’s recommendation. He suggested reviewing the building height
numbers to prevent unintended consequences resulting from arbitrary numbers.
Ms. Kneeland was agreed the issue should be forwarded to ICS for analysis, and was inclined to support
option D. She was not comfortable endorsing the neighborhood proposal because it did not have all of
the necessary information to move forward on something with such significant policy implications.
Mr. Lawless supported forwarding the amendment to ICS Task Team for analysis.
Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved that the Planning Commission
recommend option D for Amendment 5 – Building Height Transitions within
South University Neighborhood Association, that the City Council not adopt the
proposed amendment at this time and defer the topic to the Infill Compatibility
Standards project for further consideration to allow for a more comprehensive
review and analysis of the issues and policy choices, as well as identification of
long term solutions. However, in the event the City Council decides to adopt an
amendment related to this topic, the Planning Commission would recommend the
adoption of the newest proposal from the neighborhood. The motion passed
unanimously, 7:0.
Amendment 7—Required Parking for Multi-Family Developments in West University and South
University Neighborhood Associations
Mr. Duncan opined this was a policy decision. He found no direction to create additional parking, but
rather instruction to mitigate excessive demand for on-street parking for multi-family dwellings, although
no other options were offered. He thought the process had not been adequately investigated.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 11
ATTACHMENT E
Mr. Carroll preferred to recommend option A to the Council to allow for further analysis by the ICS Task
Team.
Mr. Lawless agreed with Mr. Carroll.
Mr. Hledik preferred option D and forwarding the issue to the ICS Task Team and use of the
neighborhood proposal if the Council did not want to forward it to ICS.
Mr. Duncan stated the University of Oregon (UO) was generating increased enrollment, and needed to
participate in developing a solution. This was not a minor code amendment and needed to be a major
project for the Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance was not a good fix for the problem.
Ms. Kneeland preferred option D and forwarding the issue to the ICS Task Team.
Ms. Beierle was interested in looking at a dialogue between the neighborhood and the UO as a component
to addresses the issue. She recommended getting more information that would come from that dialogue.
The neighborhoods needed to have an empowered role in the community.
Mr. Carroll agreed the UO was a player with this subject. He added the issue was really the number of
dwelling units and the number of bedrooms. Automobile ownership and demand was not unique to
students. He preferred option A over option D because the City needed to take a broad look at minimum
parking standards and requirements in general, rather than simply tweaking numbers.
Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved that the Planning Commission
recommend option D for Amendment 7 – Required Parking for Multi-Family
Developments in West University and South University Neighborhood
Associations, that the City Council not adopt the proposed amendment at this
time and defer the topic to the Infill Compatibility Standards project for further
consideration to allow for a more comprehensive review and analysis of the
issues and policy choices, as well as identification of long term solutions.
However, in the event the City Council decides to adopt an amendment related to
this topic, the Planning Commission would recommend the ordinance following
the West University revised parking plan.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 12
ATTACHMENT E
Mr. McCown supported the motion. He believed it belonged with ICS and/or a more robust process, and
should go back to the neighborhoods.
Ms. Beierle could not support the motion because she was not content with the revised proposal. She
preferred an alternative recommendation.
The motion failed 3:4, with Commissioners Hledik, McCown, and Lawless
voting in favor, and Commissioners Carroll, Kneeland, Duncan, and Beierle
voting in opposition.
Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved that the Planning Commission
recommend option A for Amendment 7 – Required Parking for Multi-Family
Developments in West University and South University Neighborhood
Associations, that the City Council not adopt the proposed amendment at this
time and defer the topic to the Infill Compatibility Standards project for further
consideration to allow for a more comprehensive review and analysis of the
issues and policy choices, as well as identification of long term solutions. The
motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
Mr. Duncan said this was a much broader issue and needed a comprehensive resolution that involved UO,
Peace Health Medical Center, the City of Eugene, and the neighborhoods. He was concerned about the
impact of stop gap solutions.
Responding to a question from Ms. Kneeland, Ms. Hansen distributed a June 2, 2008 memorandum from
the City Attorney, Subject: 2008 Minor Code Amendments/DLCD Letter. Ms. Hansen stated the City
Attorney was recommending additional findings be added under Statewide Planning Goal 12.
Mr. Hledik thanked Mr. Nystrom and Ms. Hansen and members of the public for their efforts on the
minor code amendment process.
III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 13
ATTACHMENT E
A. Other Items from Staff
Ms. Hansen said staff was reviewing the e-mail policy for communicating with Planning Commissioners.
B.Other Items from Commission
Mr. Hledik said the Planning Commission By-laws revisions had been forwarded to the City Council,
noting one change was a recommendation to delete the two ex officio members from the Commission. He
said Councilor Bettman had directed staff to develop language that would increase the citizen
membership from seven to nine members. He understood staff was asking for a reprieve until the
Planning Commission had an opportunity to provide input.
Mr. Duncan noted there were pros and cons with either number of members, and wanted time for the
Planning Commission to discuss the issue.
Mr. McCown thought it would be beneficial to have a discussion on the issue. He was willing to expand
the number to provide more community representation.
Mr. Hledik stated the Commission currently operated without time limits for Commission discussion, and
additional members would increase those discussion times, and cause meetings to be longer. He was
concerned about recruitment issues, noting that the recent selection pools had been small.
Mr. Lawless said the Commission would need to be more rigorous with time management if members
were added.
Mr. Carroll agreed recruitment numbers had been reduced.
Ms. Beierle stated she had to consider if it was possible to carve out the time necessary to serve on the
Commission when she applied last year.
Ms. Kneeland agreed there was not currently a big demand by the public to be a member of the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Hledik encouraged Commissioners to contact their Council Buddies to share their thoughts on the
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 14
ATTACHMENT E
subject.
Mr. Hledik reminded Commissioners of the meeting joint tomorrow with ODOT in Springfield City Hall.
The meeting adjourned at 2:05 p.m.
(Recorded by Linda Henry)
m:\2008 minutes\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc080602.doc
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 15