HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: Minor Code Amendments
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: Minor Code Amendments
Meeting Date: July 9, 2008 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Alissa Hansen
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541/682-5508
ISSUE STATEMENT
On July 14, 2008, the City Council will take action on an ordinance concerning land use code
amendments to Eugene Code Chapter 9. This work session is intended to prepare the council for
consideration of requested action, and will focus on the options available for the package of
amendments.
BACKGROUND
On June 16, 2008, the City Council held a well-attended public hearing on the minor code amendments.
The minor code amendment project consists of proposed amendments on 18 topics, which were
primarily raised by community members to address code concerns, with the remaining topics referred by
council.
At the public hearing, the majority of the testimony centered around two of the 18 proposed amendment
topics: #5 Building Height Transitions in South University Neighborhood Association; and #7 Required
Parking for Multi-Family Developments in West University and South University Neighborhood
Associations. At the City Council public hearing, as well as at the Planning Commission public hearing,
testimony on these two amendments was divided, while testimony on the other topics was generally in
support.
To help facilitate action on the package of amendments, two separate and independent ordinances are
being prepared for the City Council to consider. The first, Ordinance A, contains amendments on the
remaining 16 topics, and mirrors the Planning Commission’s recommendations on these amendments.
As noted above, public testimony on these topics was generally supportive. Given that these topics are
consistent with the priorities and direction provided by the community during the minor code
amendment process, and that any remaining issues on these topics could likely be resolved through
minor revision or simple clarifications, it is anticipated that council will have adequate information for
deliberation and action
The second, Ordinance B, includes options for addressing amendments #5 and #7. Given the range of
testimony on these topics and the potential broader policy implications, it is anticipated that these topics
will be the focus of the City Council’s discussions. As such, three alternatives are provided for
addressing these amendments. All three alternatives include the same code amendment language for
amendment #5, which is the neighborhood’s revised proposal for Building Height Transitions in South
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080709\S080709A.doc
University Neighborhood Association (see Attachment A), and include language to forward
amendments #5 and #7 to the Infill Compatibility Standards project for further consideration. In
addition, two alternatives for addressing amendment #7 are provided. Ordinance B and the alternatives
are summarized below:
Ordinance B:
?
Includes amendment #5 Building Height Transition in South University Neighborhood Association,
as revised by neighborhood (see Attachment A).
?
In addition, includes language to forward amendment topics #5 and #7 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. This could serve as a
sunset provision.
Alternative B1:
?
In addition to the amendment included above in Ordinance B, this alternative includes the version of
amendment #7 Required Parking for Multi-Family Developments in West University and South
University Neighborhood Associations reviewed by Planning Commission and included in draft
ordinance at the public hearing. This version 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 boundaries of the West
University Neighbors and the South University Neighborhood Association. This amendment 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.
Alternative B2:
?
In addition to the amendment included above in Ordinance B, this alternative includes a modified
version of amendment #7 Required Parking for Multi-Family Developments in West University and
South University Neighborhood Associations that would apply to the same geographic and zoning
boundaries as in Alternative B1, and would apply the West University Neighbors’ original proposal
of a parking ratio of one parking space for dwelling units with two bedrooms or less per unit, and a
minimum of two parking spaces for dwelling units with three or more bedrooms per unit.
This work session is intended to answer City Council questions or provide clarification on these options
in advance of the July 14, 2008, action date.
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
No formal action is required, however options will be provided as part of the formal code amendment
deliberations on the draft ordinances, scheduled for July 14, 2008.
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080709\S080709A.doc
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
No action is required on this item. Therefore, no recommendations are offered by the City Manager at
this time. A recommendation will be provided as part of the formal code amendment deliberations on
the draft ordinances, scheduled for July 14, 2008.
SUGGESTED MOTION
No action is required on this item. Therefore, no motions are offered by the City Manager at this time.
Suggested motions will be provided at the time of formal deliberations on the draft ordinances.
ATTACHMENTS
A.Neighborhood Proposed Revision for Amendment #5
B.Summary of Proposed Minor Code Amendments
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\M080709\S080709A.doc
ATTACHMENT A
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 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