The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-24-16 Agenda Packet EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA October 24, 2016 5:30p.m.CITYCOUNCILWORKSESSION HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 7:30p.m.CITYCOUNCILMEETING HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 MeetingofOctober24,2016; HerHonorMayorKittyPiercyPresiding Councilors 5:30p.m.CITYCOUNCILWORKSESSION HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th A.WORKSESSION EnvisionEugeneMultiFamilyHousingStrategies J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161024\\A161024S.doc 7:30p.m.MEETINGOFTHEEUGENECITYCOUNCIL HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th 1.CEREMONIALMATTERS 2.PUBLICFORUM - ¸®±Ȁ ThePublicForumisanopportunityforindividualstospeaktotheCity Councilonanycityrelatedissuesexceptforthoseitemswhichhavealreadybeen heardbyaHearingsOfficialorareon³®¨¦§³Ȍ²agendaasapublichearing. Eachpersonwillhavethreeminutestospeak.Whenyoucometothepodium, pleasegiveyourname,cityofresidence,and,forEugeneresidents,yourwardif known.Thetimerandlightsindicatethetimeyouhavetospeak.Theredlight indicatestheendofthreeminutes. - ¸®±¢«®²¤²³§¤0´¡«¨¢&®±´¬ £ ²ª²¥®±¢®¬¬¤³²¥±®¬³§¤#¨³¸#®´¢¨«ȁ 3.CONSENTCALENDAR (Note:Timepermitting,actionontheConsentCalendarmaybetakenatthe5:30 p.m.worksession.) A.ApprovalofCityCouncilMinutes B.ApprovalofTentativeWorkingAgenda C.ApprovalofResolutionAnnexingLandtotheCityofEugene(Stadter, JohnandMaureen;A167) #¨³¸#®´¢¨«0±¤²¨£¤³Ȁ ImovetoapprovetheitemsontheConsentCalendar. # ««¥®±µ®³¤ȁ 4.PUBLICHEARING AnOrdinanceConcerningAnnualMaintenanceoftheLandUseCodeand 9.2160,9.2451,9.2461,9.2600,9.2620,9.2750, AmendingSections9.0500, 9.2777,9.3165,9.3210,9.3215,9.3970,9.4130,9.6210,9.6640,9.7000, 9.7015,9.7230,9.7405,9.7505,9.7810,9.8005,9.8085,9.8090,9.8215, 9.8220,9.8320,9.8325,9.8360,9.8423,9.8430,9.8440,9.8445,9.8515, 9.8520,9.8705,9.8710,9.8750,9.8755,9.8760,9.8810and9.8855ofthe EugeneCode,1971. - ¦¤±Ȁ Introducestopic,presentsbackgroundinformation. - ¸®±®¯¤²³§¤¯´¡«¨¢§¤ ±¨¦Ȁ ThosewishingtospeakduringthePublic Hearingmustsubmitacompletedȏ2¤°´¤²³to3¯¤ ªȐformtotheinformationdesk, priortothebeginningofthePublicHearing.Whenyoucometothepodium,please giveyourname,cityofresidence,and,forEugeneresidents,yourwardifknown; youwillhavethreeminutestocomment.Therearelightsonthetimer;thered lightindicatestheendofthreeminutes. J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161024\\A161024S.doc - ¸®±Ȁ Closesthepublichearing. - ¸®±Ȁ AsksforquestionsorcommentsfromtheCityCouncil. 5.COMMITTEEREPORTSANDITEMSOFINTERESTFROMMAYOR,CITY COUNCILANDCITYMANAGER Adjourn. ¶¶¶ȁ¤´¦¤¤®±ȁ¦®µȁ J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161024\\A161024S.doc ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT BACKGROUND J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161024\\S161024A.docx MultifamilyHousingOptions AttachmentA CommunityFeedback alloptionsandideas J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161024\\S161024A.docx AttachmentB NEXTSTEPS COUNCILOPTIONS HighDensityHomes J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161024\\S161024A.docx MediumDensityHomes CITY-!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION SUGGESTEDMOTIONS ATTACHMENTS FORMOREINFORMATION Staff Contact: Terri Harding J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161024\\S161024A.docx ATTACHMENTA MultifamilyHousingOptions PotentialMultifamilyHousingStrategiesImpactonTechnical perCityCouncilDirectiononJuly20,2016deficitFeasibility Tier1 moreindepthanalysis: HighHigh HighDensityResidential(HDR)DowntownRedevelopment Strategy (financialdevelopmentincentives,projectcoordination,permitfacilitation, EWEBcode/park/infrastructure) HighHigh OPTIONAforMediumDensityHousing:Amendthezoningcodetopreserve MediumDensityResidential(MDR)landforattachedhousingtypesonly HighHigh OPTIONBforMediumDensityHousing:Amendthezoningcodetorequire singlefamilydetacheddevelopmentsonMDRlandtoachieveahigher density StrategyaddedbyCityCouncil HighNot Increasedensityalongkeytransportationcorridors andincorecommercial determined areas(forexample,withfinancialdevelopmentincentivessuchasthe MultipleUnitPropertyTaxExemption) Tier2 analyzedbutlowtechnicalfeasibility: NotLow Redesignate landfromonecategorytoanotheramultifamilyor determined commercialcategorythatcanaccommodatetheunmetneed HighLow Increasetheminimumdensity requiredinthezoningcode HighLow ExpandtheUGB toaccommodatetheunmetneed HighLow Adjusta ͻĬğƭĻƌźƓĻͼmultifamilyassumption thatimpactshowmuch housingdemandorhousingcapacityweareassumingforthefuture Numberofpersonsperhouseholdineachnewhome o Themixofnewhousingtypes(i.e.singlefamilyvs.multifamily) o Theamountofeachhousingtypethatisallocatedtoeachtypeof o landusedesignation Densityofnewhousing(numberofhomesperacreofland) o July2016 ATTACHMENTB Envision Eugene Multi-family Housing Options Summer Outreach Report October14,2016 TableofContents Background ExecutiveSummary CommunityInputOpportunitiesandInputReceived SummerEvents&DropinSessions MultifamilyOptionsQuestionnaire FocusedOutreachandSurveyofUnderrepresentedCommunityMembers LettertoPropertyOwnersandDiscussions(R2/MDR) OtherInput Attachments: 1)MultifamilyHousingOptionsTieredlistasdirectedbyCityCouncilonJuly20,2016 2)KeyCorridorsStrategyDiscussion 3)CommunityOutreachDetailedReportsandMaterials a)SummerOutreachEventsReport b)MultifamilyHousingOptionsQuestionnaireΑwĻƭǒƌƷƭReport i)EnvisionEugeneMultifamilyHousingOptionsQuestionnaireΑFullResults c)FocusedOutreachandSurveyofUnderrepresentedCommunityMembersResults Report d)Lettertopropertyowners(R2zonedorMDRdesignated) e)HousingAffordabilityInfographicsheet f)HousingNeedInfographicsheet g)MultifamilyHousingOptionsFactSheet 4)OtherInput:WrittencommentsreceivedfromJuly25October12,2016 Background OnJuly20,2016theCityCouncildirectedstafftoproceedwithcommunityoutreachonthetier one,tiertwoandkeycorridorsstrategiestoaccommodate9ǒŭĻƓĻ͸ƭremainingmultifamily housingneedsoverthenext20years(Attachment1).Adraftframeworkoftheoutreach approachwasprovidedtoCityCouncilatthesamemeeting.Thefollowingisasummaryofthe outreacheffortsmadeandthemesthatemergedfromtheresults.Detailedinformationon specificoutreacheffortscanbefoundintheattachmentstothisreport. Executive Summary Outreach AvarietyofoutreachmethodswereusedtogetfeedbackfromabroadrangeofEugeneans (seeAttachment3,CommunityOutreachDetailedReportsandMaterials).Staffproduced videos,informationalgraphicsorͻźƓŅƚŭƩğƦŷźĭƭͼandfactsheetsthatweredistributedthrough weeklyenewsletters,inpersoneventsandtheprojectwebsite.Staffhostedorattended fifteeneventsandspoketoanestimated500residents.Anonlinequestionnairewas distributed,soliciting185completeresponses.Wheregapswerefoundinreachingsubsetsof thecommunity,staffcontactedexistingnetworkstodistributetheinformationand todesignfocused questionnaire.StaffalsoworkedwithCogito,alocalpublicinvolvementfirm, outreachstrategiestoreachunderrepresentedgroups,includingLatinoresidents,peoplewith lowerincomes,andyoungerpeopleofEugene.Themostsuccessfulmethodsinreachinga broadrangeofpeopleweretheenewsletters,theinfographicsheets,andthevideos. diversityofstakeholdersandcommunity Whilestaffputsignificanteffortintoreachinga members,werecognizethatthenumberofpeoplewewereabletoreachrepresentsa relativelysmallsample.Giventhislimitation,theopinionsandconcernssummarizedinthis reportdonotreflectthoseofthewholecommunity.Thisreportinsteadreflectsasamplingof theissuesandconcernsthatmaycomeupasCouncilworksthroughitsdecisionmaking process. SummaryofOverallInput TopicKeyTakeaways Highdensityresidentialdowntown Thereisgeneralsupportforhigherdensityhousing redevelopment withexistingprograms downtowncomparedtootherpartsofthe andincentives community. PartofthecommunityķƚĻƭƓ͸ƷsupporttheĭźƷǤ͸ƭ analysisthatsignificanthousingdevelopmentwill nothappenwithoutsomesortofactiontomakeit morefinanciallyfeasible. Latinoinputhighlightedparticularconcernwith safetyandovercrowdingassociatedwithadding morehousingdowntown. MediumdensityresidentialOptionA: Abouthalfsupport/somewhatsupportmedium Amendthezoningcodetopreservethe densityresidentialOptionAandB,withslightly R2mediumdensityresidentialzonefor moresupportforOptionB.Commentsindicatethat attachedhousing Bseemstobethemoreflexibleofthetwooptions Thereishighsupportforexemptingsmallerinfill MediumdensityresidentialOptionB: lotsfromeitherofthesenewstandards. Amendthezoningcodetoincreasethe minimumnumberofhomesrequiredin R2mediumdensityresidentialzones from10toabout14homespernetacre 2|Page KeyCorridorsStrategy Increasehousing Thereissupportforaddinghousingtokeycorridors. densityalongkeytransportation Therewerefewcommentseitherwayregarding corridorsandcorecommercialareas delayinadoptionoftheUGBifthekeycorridor throughoutthecity(withincentives). strategywereusedtomeetthehousingdeficit. TheconversationsaroundSouthWillametteimpact discussionsaboutthisstrategyandhowkey corridorswouldbeimplemented,specifically regardingtheprocessforandtimingof implementation. Othermultifamilyhousingstrategies Mostcommonstrategiessuggested: suggestions EncourageSDUs(SecondaryDwellingUnits), tinyhousesandotherformsofnontraditional housing MorehousingonC2zonedlandormixeduse developments expandtheUrbanGrowthBoundary Examplesofotherspecificstrategiessuggested: ReduceTrafficImpactAnalysisrequirements Updateaveragedensitiesassumed,bringmulti familynumbersuptodate Otherthemes Concernsaboutdensityingeneral,including buildingdesignandoffsiteimpactsofdenser housing(parking,etc.)andcompatibilitywith neighborhoods Opposition/concernsaboutMUPTE(MultipleUnit PropertyTaxExemption)programorincentivesin general Concernsabouthousingaffordability Generalconcernsaboutcitystaff/planning processes ConfusionaboutMDROptionAandBstrategies 3|Page MultifamilyHousingOptionsQuestionnaireresults: Thefollowingresultsreflectasamplesizeof185respondents.Theycannotbereadasrepresentativeof thecommunityasawhole.Rather,theseresultsraiseissuesandpublicconcernsassociatedwith planningformultifamilyhousing,andprovideanindicationoflikelylevelsofsupportforthevarious policyoptionswithinthecommunity. MultiFamilyStrategies:LevelofSupport 140 Yes 120 100 Somewhat Yes 80 No 60 Somewhat 40 No 20 0 SupportNonSupportNonSupportNonSupportNonSupportNon SupportSupportSupportSupportSupport HDRDowntownMDROpt.AMDROpt.BKeyCorridors(HDR&SmallLotExemption MDR) Note:ThetableabovedoesnotreflectthosethatrespondedneutralorthattheyķźķƓ͸Ʒhaveenoughinformation. OtherConsiderationsandStrategies 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 No.Yes,here'smyNo,Ithinkyou'veYes,here'smy suggestion...covereditsuggestion... OtherConsiderations?OtherStrategies? 4|Page Conclusion Theresultsofouroutreachindicatethatthereisgeneralsupportforhigherdensityhousing downtown.Therearepartsofthecommunitythatareneutralorsupportiveofdevelopment incentivesassociatedwiththisstrategy,aswellasasmallbutvocalcohortthatarenot suchasaboutsafetydowntownand supportiveofdevelopmentincentives.Otherconcerns, overcrowding,werealsostated. Theresultsalsoindicatethatthereisgeneralsupportforthekeycorridorsstrategy.Whilethe conceptofhigherdensityalongcorridorsiswidelysupported,itshouldbenotedthatgiven currentmarketconditions,subsidiesorincentiveswouldneedtobeintroducedintheseareas inordertoaddressourhousingneeds.Developmentincentivesfacesignificantcommunity opposition,anditwouldtaketimefortheCitytodesignandimplementtheminadditional areasofthecommunity.SeeAttachment2formoreinformationabouthowthisstrategycould beimplemented. WhiletherewasnosignificantdifferenceofsupportforMediumDensityResidentialOptionA orOptionB,OptionBismoreflexibleandhasslightlymoresupport.Thereisahighdegreeof supportforexemptingsmallerinfilllotsfromeitherofthesenewstandards. Communityinputalsoresultedinalistofotherstrategiestoconsidertoaccommodatemulti familyhousing.Someofthemostcommonlysuggestedstrategiesareincludedonthetieredlist ofmultifamilyhousingoptionspreviouslyprovidedtoCouncilJuly20,2015.Commentson thosethatcouldimpactthemultifamilyhousingdeficitarediscussedinthisreport. Someofthesuggestionsweredirectedathowhousingdevelops(e.g.affordabilityandbuilding design)withoutaclearrelationshiptosolvingourmultifamilyhousingneed.Community membersindicatedconcernwithpotentialimpactsfrominfilldevelopmentthatwouldoccurat increaseddensitiesunderOptionAorB.Ineitherscenariothereareconcernsaboutadding morehousingtoestablishedneighborhoodsorrezoningsinglefamilyareas(despitethefact thatOptionsAandBdonotrezonesinglefamilyareas).Wealsoheardconcernsabout increaseddensity(buildingdesignandoffsiteimpacts),andconcernsabouttherolesofcity staff,neighborhoodresidents,andcitywideboardsandcommissions,inadditiontoconcerns aboutequitable,fairplanningprocesses. Fromourworkreachingouttounderrepresentedmembersofthecommunity,welearnedthat peopleareinterestedinwhatthecityisdoing,andarehappytobeaskedfortheiropinions. Providingmoreinformationupfrontcouldincreasetheamountofinputreceivedandreduce uncertaintyandmisunderstanding.Focusgroupswithabroadrangeofpeopleaheadofa questionnaireorinputopportunitycouldbeagoodwaytoincreasetheinputandprovide learningopportunitiesaboutcityprojects.Finally,followingupwithfolksaboutwhywedo planning,whatwearetryingtoachieveandhowtheirinputisbeingusedishelpfulevenif peopledisagreewiththeoutcome. 5|Page Envision Eugene UGB Adoption Package Timeline UPDATED OCT. 7, 2016 2016 FORMAL ADOPTION MULTI-FAMILY OPTIONSUGB PACKAGE SUMMER EVENTS & OUTREACH,FINALIZE ADOPTION PACKAGE, PROCESS ANALYSISMULTI-FAMILY OPTIONS VETTING & OUTREACHCOMMUNITY OUTREACH SEE PUBLIC EVENTS @ EnvisionEugene.org 2016 JUNEJULYAUGSEPTOCTNOVDEC Draft 1 UGB Adoption Package Eugene EugeneEugeneEugene EugeneEugene City CouncilCity Council Planning City CouncilCity Council Planning Commission Memo:Work SessionCommissionMemo:Work SessionUpdate & UGB AdoptionDirection onWork SessionOutreachDirection on Council Memo and Multi-FamilyPublicSummaryMulti-Family Department of OptionsOutreachStrategies Land Conservation and Development Notice & Findings 2017 FORMAL ADOPTION PROCESS & PUBLIC COMMENT ON UGB ADOPTION PACKAGE PLANNING COMMISSION ELECTED OFFICIALS 2017 FEB JANMARAPRMAYJUNE Work Public WorkPublic Eugenes Draft 2 DeliberationsRecommmendation DeliberationsAction Sessions Hearing SessionsHearing UGB Adoption NEW UGB! Package EUGENE AND LANE COUNTY PLANNING CITY COUNCIL & BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Planning Commission Recommendation COMMISSION HEARING PROCESSHEARING PROCESS Draft ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT BACKGROUND CITY-!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS FORMOREINFORMATION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161024\\S1610241.doc ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT SUGGESTEDMOTION FORMOREINFORMATION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161024\\S1610242.doc ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT SUGGESTEDMOTION ATTACHMENTS FORMOREINFORMATION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161024\\S1610243A.doc ATTACHMENTA MINUTES EugeneCityCouncil HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 October10,2016 5:30p.m. CouncilorsPresent: '±¤¦%µ ²µ¨ ¯§®¤#« ¨±¤3¸±¤³³µ¨ ¯§®¤ WORK SESSION: South Willamette Next Steps 1. MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Brown, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved that the City Manager is directed to prepare, in consultation with the appropriate City staff and the elected boards of the four City-chartered south Eugene neighbors – Friendly Area Neighbors (FAN), Southwest Hills Neighborhood Association (SHINA), Southeast Neighbors (SEN) and Amazon Neighborhood Association (Amazon) – a proposal for a planning process that is based on the South Willamette Street Initiative (Attachment A of September 26, 2016, work session AIS). The City Manager’s proposal shall embody the basic structure and elements of the South Willamette Initiative; however, the proposal may make limited adjustments to the geographic boundaries, the composition of the planning team and other details. The proposal may also include recommendations for additional guidelines for the refinement plan process to be established by City Council. A check-in with Council on the status and progress of the draft proposal no later than November 7, 2016. A final draft proposal shall be presented for Council and public review no later than December 1, 2016. Council’s initial discussion and further direction to the City Manager on the proposal shall be scheduled for the December 14, 2016, Council work session. Council’s deliberation and action on the proposal shall be scheduled as soon as practicable following swearing in of the new Council in 2017. PASSED 7:1, Councilor Syrett opposed. MINUTES – Eugene City Council October 10, 2016 Page 1 Work Session and Meeting Council discussion: Motion provides a way to move forward on planning for South Willamette with a reduced scope. Proposal will allow for plenty of community and staff input; will be led by residents. Refinement plan process provides the kind of clarity needed to accomplish goals. Important that process begins at the neighborhood level, within existing policy. Community oversight will provide clarity. Process should be led by neighborhood; proposal moves us in that direction. Proposal for a refinement plan for South Willamette area doesn’t address larger issues. Envision Eugene commitments and goals need to be taken to the neighborhood level. Should be spending staff time and energy on implementing Envision Eugene across the City. Need to be sure doesn’t have unintended consequences on other neighborhoods. Every refinement plan the city has approved has been developed by residents and businesses. This process incorporates many pillars of Envision Eugene. Be inclusive in the process and who’s involved; limit the boundaries. Councilors affected by this should be involved in development of the plan. MINUTES – Eugene City Council October 10, 2016 Page 2 Work Session and Meeting MINUTES EugeneCityCouncil HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 October10,2016 7:30p.m. CouncilorsPresent: #« ¨±¤3¸±¤³³µ¨ ¯§®¤ CouncilorsAbsent: CEREMONIAL MATTERS 1. Mayor Piercy honored the Eugene Emeralds baseball team for being the 2016 Northwest League Champions. The City of Eugene Urban Forestry program was awarded the Oregon Community Trees 2016 Organizational Award. Judge Mary Jane Mori was recognized for her 22 years as a Municipal Court Judge for the City of Eugene and it was announced that a courtroom will be named the “Mary Jane Mori Courtroom.” 2. PUBLIC FORUM 1. Gail Newton – Supported enhanced swimming pool access in Eugene. 2. Jeff Winter – Supported more swimming access in Eugene and a cover for Amazon pool. 3. Paul Neville – Supported approval of HOME funds for St. Vincent de Paul housing for teens. 4. Queen Eugenia Slimesworth – Supported bringing back the Eugene Celebration parade. 5. Alden McWayne – Supported implementation of the climate recovery ordinance. 6. Wes Georgiev – Supported allocating money to the Transportation System Plan for Beltline Rd. 7. Corina MacWilliams – Supported implantation of the climate recovery ordinance and carbon tax. 8. Alfredo Gormezano – Supported helping homeowners to construct extra dwellings on property. 9. Stefan Strek – Supported community consent on projects in Eugene. 10. Joe Tyndall – Said he believes the Police Commission is censoring information. Council discussion: Dakota Access Pipeline resolution is to be recognized on Indigenous Peoples Day. Excited for the potential of a cover for Amazon Pool. St. Vincent de Paul application received some of the highest scores ever by HUD. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to approve the PASSED 7:0. items on the consent calendar. MINUTES – Eugene City Council October 10, 2016 Page 3 Work Session and Meeting MINUTES – Eugene City Council October 10, 2016 Page 4 Work Session and Meeting ATTACHMENTB MINUTES EugeneCityCouncil HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 October12,2016 12:00p.m. CouncilorsPresent:GeorgePolingviaphone, GregEvansviaphone,ClaireSyrettviaphone EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(e) 1. The City Council met in executive session pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(e). 2. WORK SESSION City Hall Update Design and Construction Manager Mike Penwell led the council in a discussion on rebid options on low-cost reductions, simplification of south façade, and the mechanical system. Council discussion: Do not want to reduce energy efficiency and subvert City’s energy goals. Better options may be available that aren’t currently begin explored. Keeping all options on the table makes sense. Prioritizing short-term costs over long term costs is unwise. Request made for a drawing showing building without the second skin. Not having updated AV seems counterproductive; not using cedar would be a mistake. This process isn’t eliminating options but keeps them viable. Each option needs to be a smart choice over the long-term. Shouldn’t alter proposed mechanical system; keep it energy efficient. Reconsider EWEB site; schedule a tour of the facility. MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to continue with work on a rebuild option that includes the low- and no- cost reduction items presented at the work session and continue to work on a rebuild option to explore simplification of the south façade including elimination of the double skin. PASSED 6:1, Councilor Clark opposed, Councilor Evans absent. MINUTES – Eugene City Council October 12, 2016 Page 1 Work Session ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT BACKGROUND RELATEDCITYPOLICIES COUNCILOPTIONS CITY-!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION SUGGESTEDMOTION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161024\\S1610243B.doc ATTACHMENTS FORMOREINFORMATION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161024\\S1610243B.doc ECC UGENEITYOUNCIL TWA ENTATIVE ORKINGGENDA October 20, 2016 OCTOBER 24 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: Envision Eugene 90 mins – PDD/Harding 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. Ceremonial Matters 2. Public Forum 3. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Forrest b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Forrest c. Approval of Stadter Annexation, 4075 Gilham Rd (A 16-7) PDD/Berg-Johansen 4. PH: Ordinance Concerning Annual Maintenance of Land Use Code PDD/Hansen 5. Committee Reports and Items of Interest OCTOBER 26 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: Coordinated Downtown Development 90 mins – CS/Medary NOVEMBER 9 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: City Hall Update 90 mins – CS/Hammitt NOVEMBER 14 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Joint Work Session w/Lane County Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. JEO WS: Downtown Planning and Development 90 mins - CS 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag 2. Public Forum 3. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Forrest b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Forrest 4. PH and Action: Resolution on Measure 49 Claim PDD/CAO-Davies 5. Action: Ordinance Concerning Annual Maintenance of Land Use Code PDD/Hansen 6. WS: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan 30 mins – CS/Vanderhaeghen NOVEMBER 16 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: Evans, Taylor A. WS: OVE and Rest Stop Pilot Programs 90 mins – CS/Cariaga NOVEMBER 21 MONDAY NOTE: 5:30 P.M. WORK SESSION ADDED * 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: Poling A. WS: City Hall Update 90 mins – CS/Hammitt A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session J:\\CMO\\CC\\CCAGENDA.docx ECC UGENEITYOUNCIL TWA ENTATIVE ORKINGGENDA October 20, 2016 7:30 p.m. Council Public Hearing Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. PH: Ordinance Concerning Erosion and Sediment Control Program PW/Gillespie NOVEMBER 23 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: Contracting Equity Program Update 45 mins – CS/Silvers B. WS: Council Communications 45 mins – CS/Ruiz NOVEMBER 28 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: Downtown Update 90 mins – CS/Medary 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Forrest b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Forrest 3. WS: Minutes Recording Update CS/Cariaga NOVEMBER 30 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: Fireworks Ban 30 mins – Fire B. WS: Parks and Recreation System Plan 60 mins – PW/Burke DECEMBER 12 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: Rental Housing Code 45 mins – PDD/Nicholas B. WS: $15 Minimum Wage for City and Contract Employees 45 mins – CS/Hammitt 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Forrest b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Forrest c. Adoption of Resolution Acknowledging Receipt of CAFR CS/Lauderbach 3. URA Action: Resolution Acknowledging Receipt of Annual Financial Report CS/Lauderbach 4. URA PH and Action: Supplemental Budget CS/Miller 5. PH and Action: Supplemental Budget CS/Miller 6. Action: Ordinance Concerning Erosion and Sediment Control Program PW/Gillespie DECEMBER 14 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: South Willamette Next Steps 45 mins – PDD/Harding B. WS: Enterprise Zone Task Force 45 mins – PDD/D’Souza A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session J:\\CMO\\CC\\CCAGENDA.docx ECC UGENEITYOUNCIL TWA ENTATIVE ORKINGGENDA October 20, 2016 COUNCIL BREAK: DECEMBER 15, 2016 – JANUARY 4, 2017 JANUARY 4 WEDNESDAY 5:30 p.m. State of the City Hult Center Lobby Expected Absences: A. State of the City JANUARY 11 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. Election of 2017 Council Officers B. WS: C. WS: JANUARY 17 TUESDAY 7:30 p.m. Council Public Hearing Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. PH: JANUARY 18 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: B. WS: JANUARY 23 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest: HRC, SC, HSC, LCOG, MPC, PSCC 30 mins B. WS: 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Forrest b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Forrest JANUARY 25 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: B. WS: FEBRUARY 8 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: 45 mins – B. WS: 45 mins – A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session J:\\CMO\\CC\\CCAGENDA.docx ECC UGENEITYOUNCIL TWA ENTATIVE ORKINGGENDA October 20, 2016 FEBRUARY 13 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest B. WS: 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Forrest b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Forrest FEBRUARY 15 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: B. WS: FEBRUARY 21 TUESDAY 7:30 p.m. Council Public Hearing Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. PH: Enterprise Zone Revised Public Benefit Criteria PDD/D’Souza FEBRUARY 22 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: B. WS: FEBRUARY 27 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest from Mayor, City Council and City Manager 30 mins B. WS: 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Forrest b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Forrest MARCH 8 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: B. WS: MARCH 13 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. Committee Reports: PC, South Willamette EDC, LTD/EmX, OMPOC, McKenzie Watershed B. WS: A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session J:\\CMO\\CC\\CCAGENDA.docx ECC UGENEITYOUNCIL TWA ENTATIVE ORKINGGENDA October 20, 2016 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Forrest b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Forrest 3. PH and Action: Capital Improvement Program CS/Streepey MARCH 15 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: B. WS: COUNCIL BREAK: MARCH 16, 2017 – APRIL 10, 2017 ON THE RADAR Work Session Polls/Council Requests Status 1. Inclusionary Zoning (Taylor) ............................................................................................................................. TBD 2. Commercial Setback Code Requirement (Zelenka) ......................................................................................... TBD 3. Renter Protection ............................................................................................................................................ TBD A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session J:\\CMO\\CC\\CCAGENDA.docx ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov 541/682-5437 ISSUESTATEMENT BACKGROUND J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161024\\S1610243C.doc RELATEDCITYPOLICIES COUNCILOPTIONS CITY-!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION SUGGESTEDMOTION ATTACHMENTS FORMOREINFORMATION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161024\\S1610243C.doc Stadter (A 16-7) Attachment A Subject Property EUGENE Subject M I R R O R P O N D W A Y Property UGB NELS ON LN S T E R L I N G P A R K P L C O U N T R Y H A V E N D R L A T H E N W A Y Caution: C R IM S O N A This map is based on imprecise V E source data, subject to change, and for general reference only. Subject PropertyCity Limits Ft 0500250 Eugene UGBTaxlots October 2016 ATTACHMENTB RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION ANNEXING LAND TO THE CITY OF EUGENE (PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR’S MAP 17-03-08-00, TAX LOT 303). The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. An annexation application was submitted by John and Maureen Stadter on August 2, 2016, in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.7810 of the Eugene Code, 1971, (“EC”) for annexation to the City of Eugene of the property identified asAssessor’s Map 17-03-08-00, Tax Lot 303. B. The territory proposed to be annexed is depicted on the map attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution. The legal description of the property described is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B. C. The City’s Planning Director has submitted a written recommendation that the application be approved based on the criteria of EC 9.7825. The Planning Director’s Findings and Recommendation is attached as Exhibit C. D. On September 23, 2016, a notice containing the street address and assessor’s map and tax lot number, a description of the land proposed to be annexed, and the Planning Director’s preliminary recommendation was mailed to the applicants, owners and occupants of property within 500 feet of the subject property, and the Northeast Neighbors’ neighborhood association. The notice advised that the City Council would consider the Planning Director’s full recommendation on the proposed annexation on October 24, 2016. E. After considering the Planning Director’s recommendation, the City Council finds that the application should be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows: Section 1 . Based on the above findings and the Planning Director’s Findings and Recommendation attached as Exhibit C which are adopted in support of this Resolution, it is ordered that the land identified as Assessor’s Map 17-03-08-00, Tax Lot 303, depicted on the map attached as Exhibit A, and described in the attached Exhibit B, is annexed to the City of Eugene. Resolution - Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENTB Section 2 . This Resolution is effective immediately upon its passage by the City Council. The annexation and automatic rezoning of the land from AG/UL to AG pursuant to EC 9.7820(3) shall become effective in accordance with State law. The foregoing Resolution adopted the _____ day of October, 2016. ______________________________________ City Recorder Resolution - Page 2 of 2 Exhibit A Exhibit B ExhibitC PlanningDirector'sFindingsandRecommendation AnnexationRequestfortheStadterProperty (CityFileA167) ApplicationSubmitted:August2,2016 Applicant:JohnandMaureenStadter PropertyIncludedinAnnexationRequest:TaxLot303of!ƭƭĻƭƭƚƩ͸ƭMap17030800 Zoning:AGAgriculturalwith/ULUrbanizableLandsOverlay Location:4075GilhamRoad(locatedinNortheastEugene) Representative:RichardSatre,SchirmerSatreGroup LeadCityStaff:ErikBergJohansen,CityofEugenePlanningDivision,541/6825437 EVALULATION: Basedontheinformationprovidedbytheapplicant,theCityhasdeterminedthatthisrequestcomplieswithEugene Code(EC)Section9.7805AnnexationApplicability.Assuch,itissubjecttoreviewandapprovalinaccordancewith therequirements,applicationcriteriaandproceduresofEC9.7800through9.7835.Theapplicableapprovalcriteria arepresentedbelowinboldtypefacewithfindingsandconclusionsfollowingeach. EC9.7825(1)ThelandproposedtobeannexediswithintheĭźƷǤ͸ƭurbangrowthboundaryandis: (a)Contiguoustothecitylimits;or (b)Separatedfromthecityonlybyapublicrightofwayorastream,bay,lakeorotherbodyofwater. CompliesFindings:TheannexationareaiswithintheCity'surbangrowthboundary(UGB),andas proposed,willbeseparatedfromthecityonlybyapublicrightofway,consistentwith YESNO subsection(b). EC9.7825(2)TheproposedannexationisconsistentwithapplicablepoliciesintheMetroPlanandinanyapplicable refinementplans. CompliesFindings:SeveralpoliciesfromtheMetroPlanprovidesupportforthisannexationby encouragingcompacturbangrowthtoachieveefficientuseoflandandurbanserviceprovisions YESNO withintheUGB,includingthefollowingpoliciesfromtheGrowthManagementsection(in italic text): Policy8.LandwithintheUGBmaybeconvertedfromurbanizabletourbanonlythrough annexationtoacitywhenitisfoundthat: a.Aminimumlevelofkeyurbanfacilitiesandservicescanbeprovidedtothearea inanorderlyandefficientmanner. b.Therewillbealogicalareaandtimewithinwhichtodeliverurbanservicesand facilities.Conversionofurbanizablelandtourbanshallalsobeconsistentwith theMetroPlan.(pageIIC4) Policy10.Annexationtoacitythroughnormalprocessesshallcontinuetobethehighest priority.(pageIIC5). Policy15.Ultimately,landwithintheUGBshallbeannexedtoacityandprovidedwiththe requiredminimumlevelofurbanfacilitiesandservices.Whilethetimeframefor annexationmayvary,annexationshouldoccuraslandtransitionsfromurbanizable tourban.(pageIIC5) Stadter,JohnandMaureen(A167)October2016Page1 Asaddressedbelowundersubsection(3),andconsistentwiththesepolicies,aminimumlevelof keyurbanfacilitiesandservicescanbeprovidedtotheareainanorderlyandefficientmanner. TheMetroPlandesignatestheannexationareaasappropriateforLowDensityResidentialuse. ThecurrentzoningofAGisintendedtoallowagriculturaluseswithintheUGBuntillandis convertedtourbanuse.Agriculturalusesareconsideredinterimusesuntilpublicfacilitiesand servicescanbeprovided.Inorderforthispropertytofurtherdevelopasresidentialpropertyin thefuture,azonechangetoR1LowDensityResidentialwillbenecessary. TheWillakenzieAreaPlan(WAP)istheadoptedrefinementplanforthesubjectproperty.The subjectpropertyislocatedwithintheUnincorporatedSubareaoftheWAP.Noneofthegeneral "ResidentialLandUsePolicies"appeartobedirectlyapplicabletothesubjectrequest.The "PublicFacilitiesandServicesElement"policiesoftheWAParedirectedatlocalgovernment; however,thepremiseofthesepolicies(regardingtheprovisionofurbanservices)isthe assumptionthatthepropertieswithintheUGBwillbeannexed. Asdiscussedinthissubsection,andfurtherdetailedundersubsection(3)below,theproposed annexationisconsistentwiththeMetroPlangrowthmanagementpoliciesandcanbeservedby theminimumlevelofkeyurbanservices.TheannexationproceduresbeginningatEC9.7800are consistentwithStatelawandtherefore,asfoundthroughoutthisreport,theannexationis consistentwithStatelaw. Therefore,basedonthefindingsabove,theproposalisconsistentwiththeapplicablepoliciesof theMetroPlan. EC9.7825(3)Theproposedannexationwillresultinaboundaryinwhichtheminimumlevelofkeyurbanfacilities andservices,asdefinedintheMetroPlan,canbeprovidedinanorderly,efficient,andtimely manner. CompliesFindings:Consistentwiththiscriterion,theproposedannexationwillresultinaboundaryin whichtheminimumlevelofkeyurbanfacilitiesandservicescanbeprovidedinanorderly, YESNO efficient,andtimelymannerasdetailedbelow: Wastewater ThenearestpublicwastewatersystemiswithinMirrorPondWay,approximately200feetwest ofthesubjectproperty.Thereisanexisting8inchlinethatcouldbefeasiblyextendedeastto servethesubjectproperty.Asaninformationalitem,thedepthoftheexistingline(inMirror Pond)isonlyabout5feetbelowsurface,andbecausegravityfallisrequiredwithinthepublic wastewatersystem,thereisastandardminimumslopetoconsiderwiththedesign;therefore, extensionofthissegmentofthepublicsystemendsupbeingrelativelyshallowattheconnection pointforthesubjectproperty,whichmayresultinaneedforprivatepumps,oranalternative solutiontomeetadequateslopeminimums. Additionally,therearenocapitalimprovementsplannedtoinstallpublicwastewaterinthisarea atthistime,andtherefore,theproposedextensionofpublicwastewatertoservethesubject propertywouldbereviewedthroughtheprivatelyengineeredpublicimprovement(PEPI) process,andfinancialsuretywouldbetheresponsibilityoftheprivatedeveloper. Stormwater Publicstormwatersystemsarenotavailabletoservethisproperty.ThesoilclassificationisType B,whichtypicallyindicatesthatgoodinfiltrationratescanbeexpected.Developmentproposals mustdemonstrateconsistencywithfloodcontrolstandards;onsiteretentionisafeasibleoption forthissite.Compliancewithapplicablestormwaterdevelopmentstandardswillbeensuredat thetimeofdevelopment.AportionofthepropertymaybewithinSpecialFloodHazardArea Stadter,JohnandMaureen(A167)October2016Page2 ZoneA. Transportation ThepropertyabutsGilhamRoad,aLaneCountyRoad.Compliancewithapplicablestreet standards,suchasstreetconnectivity,streetwidths,andstreetimprovementswillbeevaluated atthetimeofdevelopment.LaneCountyTransportationPlanningencouragestheCityofEugene toannexthatportionofGilhamRoadadjacenttothecurrentlyproposedannexationbecause annexationnowwillprovidetheopportunityforfuturejurisdictionaltransferwhenandifsucha jurisdictionaltransferisdesired(howeverannexationoftherightofwayisnotproposedor required).Forinformationalpurposes,LaneCountystaffnotethatbecauseGilhamRoadisa Countyroad,futuredevelopmentofpropertyconnectingtoGilhamRoadissubjecttothe applicablerequirementsofLaneCodeChapter15. SolidWaste Collectionserviceisprovidedbyprivatefirms.RegionaldisposalsitesandtheShortMountain LandfillareoperatedbyLaneCounty. WaterandElectric EugeneWaterandElectricBoard(EWEB)Waterstaffconfirmthatwaterandelectricservicesare availabletotheproperty. PublicSafety Policeprotectioncanbeextendedtothissiteuponannexationconsistentwithserviceprovision throughtheCity.FireprotectionwillbeprovidedbyEugeneSpringfiledFire.Emergencymedical servicesarecurrentlyprovidedonaregionalbasisbythecitiesofEugeneandSpringfieldto centralLaneCountyandwillcontinueinthesamemanneruponannexation. ParksandRecreation AminimumlevelofparkservicecanbeprovidedtotheproposalareaasprescribedintheMetro Plan. PlanningandDevelopmentServices Planningandbuildingpermitservicesareprovidedforallpropertieslocatedwithintheurban growthboundarybytheCityofEugene.TheEugeneCode,Chapter9,willprovidetherequired landusecontrolsforfuturedevelopmentofthesubjectpropertyuponannexation. Communications Avarietyoftelecommunicationsprovidersoffercommunicationsservicesthroughoutthe Eugene/Springfieldarea. PublicSchools ThesubjectpropertyiswithinEugeneSchoolDistrict4Jandiswithinthedistrictboundaryof GilhamElementarySchool,CalYoungMiddleSchool,andSheldonHighSchool. CONCLUSION: Basedontheabovefindings,informationsubmittedtodate,andthecriteriasetforthinEC9.7825,theproposed annexationisconsistentwiththeapplicableapprovalcriteria.Amapandlegaldescriptionshowingtheareasubjectto annexationareincludedintheapplicationfileforreference.Theeffectivedateissetinaccordancewithstatelaw. Stadter,JohnandMaureen(A167)October2016Page3 INFORMATION: Uponapprovaloftheannexation,thebasezoningofAGwillremain;however,the/ULUrbanizableLandsoverlay willbeautomaticallyremovedfromtheannexationarea.PleasecontactthePermitInformationCenter,Planner onDutyat6825377formoreinformation. Approvalofthisannexationdoesnotrelievetheapplicantfromcomplyingwithapplicablecodesandstatutory requirements. Stadter,JohnandMaureen(A167)October2016Page4 Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT BACKGROUND J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161024\\S1610244.doc PublicHearingNotice PlanningCommissionProcess RELATEDCITYPOLICIES COUNCILOPTIONS CITY-!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION SUGGESTEDMOTION ATTACHMENTS J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161024\\S1610244.doc FORMOREINFORMATION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161024\\S1610244.doc More than 2 changes to any of the boundaries of an individual lot or parcel within 1 calendar Changes to legal lot lines that result in any of the following: s used in this land use code, unless the context requires otherwise, the following ATTACHMENT A Creation of substandard public facilities or services, including, but not limited to, streets \] (8) (9) GO S\[ \] or (8) (9) 3 - Commercial Zone Land Uses and Permit Requirements S\[ ; C \[ (access and widths), access easements, and public utility easements or change in the size of a lot or parcel by more than 200 percent; \] (8) (9) 2 - S\[ C 1 - . \] C the number of platted lots and parcels Uses not specifically listed in this Table 9.2160 that are \] Publicly Owned Open Space Use (See EC orrective Homeless Shelter not in existence as of January 1, 1984 Legal Creation of an additional lot or parcel; C Type:Type: . Reconfiguration of Lots or Parcels words and phrases mean: Entertainment and Recreation in Table 9.2160 \] in Table 9.2630. \[ change . A Definitions year; of the Land Use Code - Park and Non A Commercial Zone Land Uses and Permit Requirements A Proposed Change:Proposed Change: 9.2620): (C)(D) (A)(B)(E) Lodging \[ 2016 9.0500 October adjustment (as opposed to a replat). Currently, applications for property line adjustments must be consistent ot line. For consistency with publicly owned open spaces are (8) is no (Ordinance No. new homeless shelter (subject to a the addition of a new (8) as part of longer the correct reference, due to Code line through a property line , subject to (8) of the Special arks and , as well as which precludes the removal of a reconfiguration of a lot or parcel definition needs to be removed. for a Zone Definition of Reconfiguration The reference needs be lot or corrected to reflect the update. State law has changed to Maintenance 3 and GO Zone Amendments, the allowance Proposed Amendments state law, this portion of the the Employment/Industrial rt of the allow removal of a platted Limitations. However, p Table 9.2160, Employment/Industrial permit) with the definition of - 2, C Code Amendments Additionally, as pa - conditional use C the Annual allowed in Per platted l . 20528) parcel Issue:Issue: zones - Use on 1.2. n d it without ATTACHMENT A 2 development site. This square footage limitation shall apply only to new development, an On lots with frontage on a major arterial street, the uses allowed in Table 9.2450 - Special Allowances for properties with frontage on major arterial streets in the E s per Such uses are not allowed on lot of building area subject to this standard shall not exceed 30,000 square feet reuse of existing buildings. \] orrective Wholesale Trade (excluding regional distribution center) . Special Use Limitations for Table 9.2450 frontage on major arterial streets. C Type: \] Regional Distribution Center shall not preclude nd Use and Permit Requirements Trade (Retail and Wholesale) zone. Proposed Change: (2) \[ \[ 9.2451 Employment and Industrial Zone La commercial zone Certain commercial uses, such personal services and wholesale and of this provision to allow these uses on confusion as to the standard for lots amended to clarify the applicability. Additionally, the provision needs to size of a building, not the entire use s, 2 Although the intent limitation specifically relates to the Mixed Use Employment zone if the not distribution centers and wholesale when - Employment/Industrial Zone Code 0 square foot . (the documented as part of the record 2 that do not front such streets. As 4 zone was changed to the E (which would include parking area 4 . 2 zone) for the - - with frontage removed from the C , and need to be correctedretail trade are allowed in the E ted on a major is section needs to be ere , there has been , zone ed landscaping, etc). zone the allowance for regional w - s street is allowed in the Efor the adoption process Mixed Use Employment listing rial 0 Commercial/Industrties from the clarify that the 30,0 However, the use street. arterial property is loca on prope Amendment ere removed are major associat arterial such, th w trade - Issue: only the C table s use 3. a and other applicable plans Eugene Parks by providing areas that will conserve and preserve a variety of parks, recreation areas, and The Park, Recreation, and Open by the ATTACHMENT A city manager. As used with reference to this zone, unless the context requires otherwise, the the \[ based on Wall \]Landscape Standard Setbacks and Landscaping 10 feet Screen 3 \[ - High I 3) Yes - \] , (L Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan The determination of park classification shall be Landscape \] Wall Space Zone (PRO) is intended to accomplish all of the following: Standard open spaces to maintain livability of the metropolitan area. 2 10 feet Screen. - \[ I Purpose of PRO Park, Recreation, and Open Space Zone High 3) Yes - (L Low Screen Landscape Standard CorrectiveCorrective 2 - - 15 feet Table 9.2461(8) Outdoor Storage and Display E Outdoor Storage 2) Yes - (L Type:Type: Low Screen Landscape Standard following words and phrases mean: 1 20 feet , - \[ E 2) Metro Plan Yes - (L Landscape:\] or Permitted: Setback: Implement the and Recreation Plan . Terms PRO Zone and Industrial Zone Development Standards Adjacent to a Proposed Change:Change: (1) street. Proposed 9.26009.2620 Park, Recreation and Open Space Zone the name of the landscape standard 2 and However, , Code ğƌƌ the intended standard is the High , internal inconsistency 3) adjacent to a street, to However, two references to this 4). To Table 9.2461 was Recreation Plan was repealed in plan remain in the land use code - No. 20362). amended to require the High Employment/Industrial Zone - Landscape Standard (L The Eugene Parks and standard in I - . ich is L . and need to be removed . screen outdoor storage needs to be corrected As part of the (not High Wall, wh Employment 3) inance , - Amendments (L correct this Landscape 2006 (Ord 3 zones {ĭƩĻĻƓ Issue:Issue: 4.5. - I All applicable regulations for the type of land division process The resulting lots will be relatively equal in size with the maximum difference equal to ATTACHMENT A being used must be met except where the duplex division lot standards create different 120 feet 4 -- - R . ne Parking Requirements 9.2751 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2750.) The existing lot must contain at least 8,000 square feet. 50 feet 3 -- - 10 percent or less of the total area of the original lot. Table 9.2750 Residential Zone Development Standards R The minimum lot area is at least 3,600 feet. 35 feet lot width is at least 40 feet. 2 -- - R CorrectiveCorrectiveCorrective DR Downtown Riverfront Special Area Zo (18) 35 feet 1.5 -- , (16), (17), - Type:Type:Type: R Division Regulations. . See (18) Duplex Division Lot Standards 30 feet 1 Maximum Building Height (2), (3), (4), (5) - R \] average (18) requirements. Does not include main building on (17), 1Main Building on Alley \[ -The in R Maximum Lot Coverage 1 Land Alley Access Lot- Main Building. in R (See EC (a)(b)(d) (c) Access Lot Proposed Change:Proposed Change:Proposed Change: (2) - S References Residential Zone Development Standards 9.27779.3165 Average Lot Width - adopted as part of the Single Family table needs to be revised consistent Code Amendments (Ordinance No. the special development lot width was revised several years Bicycle Parking Requirements se did not provide New standards for existing The method for measuring family Alley Access standards (Ordinance No. 20492) be deleted. 1 2751(18)). . As such, the receding the When the bicycle parking - 1 Low 20541). These standards were reference to average lot width were intended to only apply in the R ago to eliminate the use of - the same clarity regarding conjunction with the multi standards were revised in Density Residential zone - in the R EC 9.- Duplex Division needs to However, the table p are titled with the standards. 1 standards - see to R s alley access lot remains and ( applicability standards zone, and 1 - specific Lots in R Issue:Issue:Issue: 6.7.8. WS 4 bicycle parking spaces, or 1 per dwelling), the option resulting in more bicycle parking shall be used. The ATTACHMENT A . The minimum and maximum parking standards in Table EC 9.3165(3) e.g., - 10 are applicable within the S The following minimum bicycle parking standards apply instead of the spaces as designated in Table 9.3970(4)(e) below. Where two options are provided ( WS Walnut Station Special Area Zone Development Standards Applicable to All . Uses shall provide a minimum number of DW S - S DW Downtown Westside Special Area Zone and EC 9.61 ) . 4 zone ) (5 \] (4) . - Properties in the Walnut Station Special Area Zone for the R \[ 4) rements apply instead of the standards in Table 9.6105 - Corrective (1 \] 3) ) - 3 Uses and Permit Requi ( (1 EC 9.5100 \[ remaining standards in EC 9.6105 Type: (5) \] (4) \[ Comply with standards in Table 9.6105 Parking Requirements. Bicycle Parking Downtown Westside Special Area Zone Uses and Permit Requirements . Bicycle parking - \] Table 9.3210 S See (\[ Bed and Breakfast zone. Proposed Change: (e) (3) (4) - S Lodging 9.3970 within the these standards found elsewhere in the land use code were not changed accordingly. These sections need to Downtown Westside, the reference . In DW standards are intended to apply in 3 DW 4 permitted use subject to the Bed be updated to reflect the correct zone - Density Residential) apply. provides standards for bed and renumbered. Two references to- were development be subject to the 2, R zone), a bed and breakfast is a in the table needs to be revised - and Breakfast Standards at EC standards established for the R which of the Within the Downtown - Westside Special Area Zone (S However, EC 9.5100 (not the S - 1, RDW 4 parking standards code sections - provides that residential , the standards for R - - S this case, because the breakfasts in the AG, R es only code references. . To clarify some of the 4 zon 9.5100. - bicycle Issue: zone) and R High zone 9. ( standards apply to all uses permitted outright or conditionally in the base zone to which the overlay 0 feet from the primary surface. Their centerlines are a continuation of the runway centerline beginning at the centerpoint coordinates. The surfaces of the Runway and at the same elevation as the primary surface and extend to a horizontal distance of 10,000 the runway's approach sectors coincide with the width of the runway's primary surface and are . Any precision runway. The inner edge of areas, shall apply toward the minimum landscape requirements for the development . At least 20% of the development site shall be 500 feet wide. The approach sectors expand outward uniformly to a width of 3,500 feet at a ATTACHMENT A street parking 21 approach sectors slope 34 feet outward for each 1 foot upward beginning at the end of In the Commercial Airport Safety overlay zone, the following limitations and comply with Purpose of Landscape Standards landscaped with living plant materials. All required landscaping shall - 20% of development site landscaping, such as for required front yard setbacks or off DW - DW Downtown Westside Special Area Zone S - non landscape standards beginning at EC 9.6200 21 is a Landscape . areas may include rooftops or terraces accessible to building Special Development Standards for Table 9.3215 CorrectiveCorrective - Development Standards Minimum Landscape Area Required . Runway 3 \] feet along the extended runway centerline. \] Excludes required landscaping for parking areas. Type:Type: 21 Approach Sectors Landscape Standards. horizontal distance of 10,00 -required Table 9.3215 S (8) . Height. Use Limitations site. Minimum Landscape Area Downtown Westside Special Area Zone Development Standards - Runway 3 is applied: (a) occupants.) Proposed Change:Proposed Change: - \[3 (3) (8) (\[ 9.32169.4130 Zone Commercial Airport Safety Overlay material. Table 9.3215 provides this scape requirements. To resolve 21, which The height limitations in the , per the amended to be consistent with the Special Area Zone requires that 20 Commercial Airport Safety overlay minimum requirement. However, be standard for Minimum Landscape percent of a development site be reas from counting towards this required landscaping, such as for required landscaping for parking such, reference to it needs to be the special standards associated The Downtown Westside As with this table conflict with this street parking areas, can be Area, and specifically excludes needs to provision, and state that any landscaped with living plant . Eugene Airport Master Plan applied towards minimum - ecommissioned zone reference Runway 3 this conflict, the table special standards. has been dremoved. Issue:Issue: land - 10.11. off a a partition for review, the city shall advise the applicant in writing that the application is deemed complete and ity shall advise the applicant in writing of the necessary missing information. The city shall begin begin the application review process. If the city determines that the application is incomplete, the , within 30 days of its receipt, notify the applicant as to whether the a written statement from the applicant t the application contains sufficient information years ATTACHMENT A day after being first submitted, the application will be void if the applicant has been receipt of a written statement from the applicant indicating that none of the missing 2) requires the Low shrubs to form a continuous screen at least 30 inches high within 3 Living plant materials covering a minimum of 70 percent of the required notified of the missing information and has not complied with (1), (2), or (3) of this section. lot line. , other than street\] missing information will be provided; or - Upon receipt of all of the missing information requested by the city; or . Low Screen Landscape Standard (L the \[ The city shall review an application and maintained at a height not to exceed 42 inches.1 canopy tree per 30 linear feet as measured along the following: landscape area within 3 years of planting. ormation and CorrectiveCorrective tion and maintenance of all of application is complete. If the city determines tha 2). some of the missing inf - Low Screen Landscape Standard (L . Type:Type: rds other . Required Plant Materials Application Completeness Review Description of Landscape Standa information will be provided. review of the application either:the and none of , or subdivision final plat Upon receipt of indicating that installa 1.2.3. Upon st the 181 (a) Proposed Change:Proposed Change: (2)(1)(2)(3) n c O 9.62109.7015 Low Screen Landscape Standards Application Completeness Review not practical (which is at the can often take more than 180 days), Previously they were subject to the for very end of the review process and subject to the Type I (administrative interior lot lines, depending on the change in process, and recognition because these applications are not Consistent with changes to s or subdivisions became ) be ago. this state law, final plat applications Landscape Standard is required Because the Low Screen along both streets lot lines and review . official final plat is ready to be complete until the exempt from this requirement need to ) land use application of requirements several years As a result needs to be removed for requirement for Type II (Planning Director completeness review is final plat applications signed and recorded . clarification. requirements technically the partition Issue:Issue: review that 12.13. review approvals that are considered as reviewed under the Type IV review process according to the requirements and criteria set forth for part of another land use application shall be effective for the same time period as the approvals shall be effective for 18 not considered as part of ATTACHMENT A that time, the applicant shall submit a The following applications are final plan and an application for a development permit. Prior to the expiration date, the Beginning Reference applicant may submit a modification requesting a change to the commencement or EC 9.8421EC 9.8060 405. Table 9.7405 Type IV Application Requirements and Criteria each application as reflected in the beginning reference column in Table 9.7 \] Corrective approvals Legal of such . Application Requirements and Criteria Reference Type:Type: \[ and standards review months after the effective date of approval. Within standards and modifications mendment, Site Specific Change Refinement Plan Amendment, Site Specific Change review or primary land use application. another land use application ite review Site expiration time period. s \] S \[ Type IV Applications Approvals for Code A . Land Use Expiration Type IV Proposed Change:Proposed Change: (6) Type IV Application Requirements and Criteria 9.72309.7405 site review or The proposed change processed currently with other land applications, as opposed to a Type V rds review applications have be submitted and approved before expired, and new application must , which are effective n result in a for adjustment reviews and traffic consistent with state planned unit development can be is similar to that already provided or legislative application process. xpiration development is in effect, but the are tandards effective for 18 months. This is law (and current practice), this section needs to be revised to subdivision or situation where an approved provide for site specific code or planned unit impact analysis applications s concurrently with tentative approval subdivision or planned unit applications are processed problematic when these ments as Type IV E pplication s and This ca approved eview application use applications. review the concurrent implemented. for 36 months. developments To be A subdivisions concurrent Type II ite S amend standa Issue:Issue: 14.15. r reviewed under the Type V review process according to the requirements and criteria set forth for in EC 9.7400 through EC 9.7455 Type IV Application Procedures An application for annexation under the provisions of special area zone shall be processed as a Type III application as provided in EC 9.7300 through ions in EC 9.7010 Application Filing, an application for 9.7835 may be initiated by motion of the city council or by the filing of an application The proposed zone change is processed concurrently with an amendment to this land use ATTACHMENT A Changes in zoning, including the application of or change of an overlay zone or The following applications are Beginning Reference *A zone change to apply the /ND overlay zone shall be processed according to EC 9.4260. Type V EC 9.8475EC 9.8850EC 9.8060EC 9.8421EC 9.8421EC 9.8850EC 9.3000EC 9.4260 each application as reflected in the beginning reference column in Table 9.7505: EC 9.7500 through EC 9.7560 Type V Application Procedures. Type IV or Requirements and Criteria \] EC 9.7340 Type III Application Procedures, with the following exceptions: Corrective code; in which case, the zone change shall be processed as a Zone Changes Processed Concurrent with a site specific Refinement Plan Refinement Plan Amendments to policies and/or maps that are not limited Zone Change to apply the /ND Overlay Zone to Nodal Development Areas endment to apply the ND Nodal that are not limited to a specific site . Type V Application Requirements and Criteria Reference Type: Table 9.7505 Type V Application Zone Change concurrent with a Code Amendment Special Area Zone Establishment or Amendment . Application Requirementsfor an annexation. In addition to the provis concurrent with a Metro Plan diagram am annexation shall include the following: Plan Adoption or Update *Renumber remainder of section application as provided Land Use Code Amendments Development designation Type V Applications Street Name Change and to a specific site . Applicability * \] Annexation amendment Refinement in EC 9.7800 for \[ \[ Change: (4) (8) Proposed 9.7505 9.88559.7810 Annexation Application Requirements noticing the Oregon Department of Revenue at the end of the process. ions for annexations sized Due to a change in state process, cadastral map from Lane County Assessment and Taxation for - a full are required to include pplicat A Issue: 16. 1 zone may be installed at least 5 feet approval of a particular land use application. Land use applications referred to in EC 9.8000 imensions and density requirements. Within the /WR Water Resources Conservation A conditional use permit shall be granted approve with conditions, or deny a partition, with findings and conclusions. Approval, or approval ough 9.8865. To . Overlay Zone or the /WQ Water Quality Overlay Zone, no new lot may be created if ATTACHMENT A through 9.8865 are subject to the procedural requirements in EC 9.7000 through 9.7885, regarding lot dimensions, solar standards, and oposed partition complies with all of the following, unless specifically exempt from Intrusions PermittedSigns may be installed up to 5 feet into the required front yard setback except that Additional provisions addressing the applicability of sections 9.8000 through 9.8865 are The planning director shall approve, compliance through a code provision applicable to a special area zone or overlay zone: . . All signs shall comply with the setback requirements beginning at EC regarding applicable parcel ility and Effect of Application Requirements, Criteria, and Concurrent Review e , which identify various uses that requir the extent there is a conflict, the provisions in EC 9.8000 through 9.8865 control. The proposal complies with all applicable standards, including but not limited to: Application Procedures, and any additional requirements of EC 9.8000 thr more than 33% of the lot, as created, would be occupied by either: - Setbacks with conditions, shall be based on compliance with the following criteria: Corrective and EC 9.6745 9.3980 - Type: freestanding signs up to 5 feet in height in the E g criteria: \] 9.3915 . . General General density requirements for the subject zone; 9.3980 Lot standards of EC 9.2000 through \[ only if the proposal conforms to all of the followin 9.39809.3980 - - Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria Plan Approval Criteria \] 9.3915 \] \] from the front property line. 9.39159.3915 found in EC 9.2000 through \[ 9.2000 through EC \[EC 9.2000 through \[ Location Standards. . Partition, Tentative Setbacks General Provisions d The pr Applicab (a)(a)(a) Proposed Change: (4) (1)(8)(1) Walnut Station Special Area Zone References 9.66409.80059.80909.8215 alphabetical 15 to be changed to include the Walnut standards. that need to . need (Ordinance No. 20460), sections EC which Numerous and 9 reference to it needs be removed As a result of the Walnut Special Area Zone being 9.3950 through EC 9.3980 were Agricultural Zone through EC 9.3 here are a number of Whiteaker Special Area Zone) zones ( needed added to the land use code EC 9.2000 . Special Area Zone listing of all base zones. added at the end of the EC 9.3980 3915 to all base er . this map is no long 9 EC ere be changed to references to sly w references As such, t Station Station previou Issue: 17. planning director shall approve or approve with conditions a partition based on compliance with the dimensions and density requirements. Within the /WR Water Resources Conservation regarding lot dimensions and density requirements for the subject zone. Within the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone or Overlay Zone or /WQ Water Quality Overlay Zone, no new lot may be created if more ew lot may be created if more than 33% of the verlay Zone, no new lot may be created if more conclusions. Decisions approving an application, or approving with conditions shall be based on . The hearings official shall s, the hearings official shall approve or approve , where the applicant proposes requirements for the subject zone. Within the /WR Water Resources Conservation approve, conditionally approve, or deny the partition application. Unless the applicant elects to ATTACHMENT A The hearings , where the applicant proposes needed housing, as defined by the State statutes, the The planning director shall regarding applicable parcel conclusions. Unless the applicant elects to use the general criteria contained in EC 9.8320 tion with findings and - oval Criteria approve, approve with conditions, or deny a tentative PUD application with findings and regarding lot dimensions and density . Needed Housing Partition, Tentative Plan Appr ther: than 33% of the lot, as created, would be occupied by either: with conditions a PUD based on compliance with the following criteria: than 33% of the lot, as created, would be occupied by ei official shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the PUD applica General . General Needed Housing 9.3980 proposed partition complies with all of the following: - -Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria \] lot, as created, would be occupied by either: - Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria 9.3915 /WQ Water Quality Overlay Zone, no n The PUD complies with all of the following: Lot standards of EC 9.2000 through \[ Overlay Zone or /WQ Water Quality O use the general criteria contained in EC 9.8215 needed housing, as defined by the State statute 9.3980 The PUD complies with all of the following: 9.3980 - Tentative Plan Approval Criteria \] \] 9.3915 9.3915 compliance with the following criteria: EC 9.2000 through \[ EC 9.2000 through \[ following criteria: Partition, The (a) (a)(a) General (10) (7) (2) 9.82209.83209.8325 regarding lot dimensions and density requirements regarding lot dimensions and density requirements Conservation Overlay Zone or approve, conditionally approve, or deny the subdivision application. Unless the applicant elects to planning director shall approve or approve with conditions a subdivision based on compliance with specifically exempt from /WQ Water Quality Overlay Zone, no new lot may be created if more than 33% of the The planning director shall approve, approve, or deny the site review application. Approval or conditional approval shall be based on l ditionally approve, or deny the site review application. Unless the applicant elects to use the the planning director shall approve or approve with conditions a site review based on compliance with the following criteria: approve with conditions, or deny a proposed subdivision. Approval, or approval with conditions The planning director shal nservation ATTACHMENT A efined by the State statutes, the - compliance through a code provision applicable to a special area zone or overlay zone:: ss specifically exempt from . The planning director shall approve, conditionally Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria compliance through a code provision applicable to a special area zone or overlay zone , where the The planning director shall approve, regarding lot dimensions and density regarding lot dimensions and density requirements for the subject zone. Within the /WR Water Resources Co General , unless - Site Review Approval Criteria . applicant proposes needed housing, as defined by the State statutes, Needed Housing for the subject zone. Within the /WR Water Resources The proposed subdivision complies with the following, unle The proposed subdivision complies with all of the following sal complies with all of the following standards:The proposal complies with all of the following standards: , where the applicant proposes needed housing, as d . General shall be based on compliance with the following criteria: lot, as created, would be occupied by either: . Needed Housing -- Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria use the general criteria contained in EC 9.8515 9.39809.3980 9.39809.3980 requirements for the subject zone. General \] \] \] \] general criteria contained in EC 9.8440 9.39159.3915 9.39159.3915 compliance with the following criteria: \[EC 9.2000 through \[ -for the subject zone.- EC 9.2000 through \[EC 9.2000 through \[ EC 9.2000 through Site Review Approval CriteriaSite Review Approval Criteria the following criteria: The propo (a) (a)(a) (a) General con (5)(4) (1)(3) 9.84409.84459.85159.8520 Overlay Zone or /WQ Water Quality Overlay Zone, no new lot may be created if more w ny the property owner uses enjoyed tions upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. The city shall not grant variances which allow uses not on the applicable list of allowed In addition to the provisions Unless specified otherwise in another land use code section, the planning director nd from EC 9.2000 to by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zones. Any variance granted shall be Approval, or The planning director shall approve, conditionally approve, or for partial or full exemption from specific land use code standards only when, because of special . The provisions of EC 9.5750(9), 9.6708, and 9.8750 through 9.8760 allo Applications shall contain final maps and supplemental materials required to demonstrate ATTACHMENT A subject to conditions that ensure the variance does not constitute a granting of special uses , the following specific requirements apply to PUD final plan In addition to the above criteria, the following 3 criteria apply to variances from code circumstances applicable to the property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, or deny a variance, with findings and conclusions thereon following a Type II process. conditional approval shall be based on compliance with all the following criteria: base zone regulations as applied to fences and walls. of this land use code., a than 33% of the lot, as created, would be occupied by either: Motor Vehicle Parking Standards . Corrective Planned Unit Development, Final Plan Application Requirements topography, the strict application of those regulations would de compliance with tentative plan conditions of approval. Type: may grant variances only to the standards prescribed in: for the following: 9.3980 \] 9.3915 sections that apply to EC 9.6410 \[ uses specified in EC 9.2000 through . 9.3980 Interior Yard Setbacks. Front Yard Setbacks. Approval Criteria for Variances Walls. Application Filing \] Building Height. 9.3915 inconsistent with the limita Fences and Purpose of Variances 9.3980 \[ EC 9.2000 to \] . in EC 9.7010 9.3915 Applicability applications: Application Requirements (a)(b)(d) (c) \[ Proposed Change: (4) (1)(1) 9.8360 9.8750.87559.8760 9 lanned Unit Development individual that are intended to create separate inal For PUDs ntil planned unit development (PUD) f a submitted for final approval u requirements for phases of a PUD may not be stipulate that the phases are legal lots. The pplication Final P Issue: 18. a Review of an application to annex property, divide land, develop or use property, or , or a refinement plan, shall be processed as provided in \] Individual phases of a PUD may not be submitted for final PUD review until the boundaries application shall clearly state whether the applicant is electing to use the general approval criteria , Application Procedures, and any additional requirements of EC 9.8000 through 9.8865. To 9.7885 Final PUD plans may be submitted in phases, if such phases were approved as part of the osal includes needed housing, as of the phases are legal lots as defined in this land use code, and documents necessary to planning commission approves the conditional use permit, and then only in accordance with the found in EC 9.2000 through 9.3915, which identify various uses that require approval of a , Application Procedures. When a conditional use permit is required for the proposed use , ATTACHMENT A ntative PUD consideration. The boundaries of each phase of the final PUD plans shall tions 9.8000 through 9.8865 are 9.7835 coincide with the boundaries of the phasing areas approved at the tentative plan stage. particular land use application. Land use applications referred to in EC 9.8000 through . Conditional use applications shall be facilities, landscaping, open space, and outdoor living areas have been executed and no development permit application shall be accepted by the city until the hearings official or 40 , of buildings, common use Applicability and Effect of Application Requirements, Criteria, and Concurrent Review \[ processed in accordance with the application procedures contained in EC 9.7000 through defined by state statutes, the written statement submitted with the conditional use permit Requests to extend the time frame for a specific phase shall be subject to EC 9.73 \] the extent there is a conflict, the provisions in EC 9.8000 through 9.8865 control. 9.7885 \[ ents in EC 9.7000 through assure permanent maintenance, at no expense to the city terms and conditions of that conditional use permit. If the prop Additional provisions addressing the applicability of sec . Application Requirements 9.8865 are subject to the procedural requirem Corrective Metro Plan. 9.7835 Type: enumber remaining section \] 9.7885 amend this land use code, the Conditional Use Permit \[ sections 9.7000 through . \] recorded. Expiration . Introduction te r \[ 9.7835 * Proposed Change: (2)(3)(1) eferences 9.70009.80059.8085 R Metro Plan Amendment Process this creates a situation that is impossible are intended to ly, this provision needs to As a result of the Metro Plan ) . Ordinance No. 20400 set up the phase boundaries, to be , EC subdivision (which were added approved until the implementing that 9.7835 creates the legal lots) cannot be subsequent subdivision process. The approved were lots (such as a residential PUD), EC references to ections throughout the code Amendment Process Code EC . implemented though the EC 9.7800 through 9.7885 to reflect these changes to 9.7800 through 9.7835 plans for a final PUD amended , and new s several PUD is finalized. , as the Amendments ( be removed. o be There are According repealed to meet 9.7885need t Issue: 19. oved public easements shall be considered in accordance with the Type I y permit applications shall be considered in accordance with the Type III public ways and public easements may be applied for by private citizens, public public utility easements, letters of concurrence to the vacation from affected utility providers way, and vacation and considered in accordance with the Type II Application Procedures contained in EC 9.7000 and the approval instead of the approval criteria submitted on a ATTACHMENT A and the approval criteria contained in EC 9.8720. In the case of c easements and nce with the vacation from affected utility providers must be submitted with the Application 9.7835 criteria contained in EC 9.8715. In the case of public utility easements, statements of ed by the city manager and reviewed under a Type IV process for site specific or partition plats, shall be 9.7835 \] unless considered concurrently with a Type IV or Type V application. 9.7885 \] 9.7835 Applications for refinement plan amendments shall be 9.7885 . Needed Housing amendments or otherwise, a Type V process according to EC 9.7000 through \[ 9.7835 way, except improved publi \] agencies, or the city council in accordance with EC 9.7000 through \[ - of 9.7885 \] - Vacation of improved public easements, unimproved public right 9.7885 \[ application procedures contained in EC 9.7000 through EC General way located within undeveloped subdivision Application Procedures contained in EC 9.7000 through \[ - Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria - Permit Approval Criteria - of - rededication of unimproved public rights must be submitted with the application. . . Vacations, Application Requirements Applicability of Vacation Procedures Conditional Use Application Procedures. 9.7835 Willamette Greenwa . . Vacation of unimpr Application Procedures. General RequirementsGeneral Requirements \] 9.7885 - found in EC 9.8100 of Vacation of - application. Procedures public right \[ through concurre in EC 9.8090 form approv (3)(1)(2)(1) 9.84239.87059.87109.8810 0 percent or more of the total existing building square footage on the ther of the following: New development of vacant sites (excluding development that consists only of new or An expansion of 20 percent or more of the total existing building square footage on the less the above, may obtain approval . Site review provisions shall be applied when any of the following conditions exist: applicant specifically request in the application that the city apply the criteria at EC 9.8440 No development permit shall be issued by the Property is zoned with the /SR overlay zone and the proposal would result in either of the ATTACHMENT A The proposed use on the property is identified as a use which requires site review under proposing needed housing shall be reviewed through the Type II site review procedures New development of vacant sites (excluding partitions and any development that The application proposes needed housing, as defined by State statutes. Applications un , or the final planned unit development Needed Housing other provisions of this land use code and the proposal would result in ei \] - , or (3) Site Review Approval Criteria \[ (2) consists only of new or expanded parking areas). or \] , \[ In lieu of site review, an application that falls within (1) city prior to approval of the site review application rough the Planned Unit Development process. \] . General Legal Type: utilizing the criteria at EC 9.8445 expanded parking areas). - Site Review Approval Criteria development site.development site. An expansion of 2 following: Applicability . application (a)(b)(a)(b) Proposed Change: (3) (1)(2) th \[ 9.8430 partitions, subdivisions and a site review application is , which conditional use As also such, this provision needs to be applications proposing needed inconsistent with state law. that Review Applicability s) unreasonable cost and delay planned unit development results in equirement including , and The r redundant removed. ( permits, complete Site housing Issue: 20. is ATTACHMENT B ORDINANCE NO. ______ AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING ANNUAL MAINTENANCE OF THE LAND USE , , , , CODE AND AMENDING SECTIONS 9.0500, 9.21609.24519.24619.2600 , , , , , , , , , , 9.26209.27509.27779.31659.32109.32159.39709.41309.62109.6640 , , , , , , , , , , 9.70009.70159.72309.74059.75059.78109.80059.80859.80909.8215 , , , , , , , , , , 9.82209.83209.83259.83609.84239.84309.84409.84459.85159.8520 , , , , , 9.87059.87109.87509.87559.87609.8810 AND 9.8855 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Eugene Code, 1971, is amended 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: Reconfiguration of Lots or Parcels . Changes to legal lot lines that result in any of the following: (A) Creation of an additional lot or parcel; (B) More than 2 changes to any of the boundaries of an individual lot or parcel within 1 calendar year; (C) A change in the size of a lot or parcel by more than 200 percent; or (D) Creation of substandard public facilities or services, including, but not limited to, streets (access and widths), access easements, and public utility easements\[; or (E) A change in the number of platted lots and parcels\]. Section 2 . The entry for - Table 9.2160 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended as Homeless Shelter not in existence as of January 1, 1984 Regional Distribution CenterWholesale Trade (excluding regional distribution center) of that Table, are repealed. Ordinance - Page 1 of 16 ATTACHMENT B Table 9.2160 Commercial Zone Land Uses and Permit Requirements C-1C-2C-3GO Entertainment and Recreation Park and Non-Publicly Owned Open Space S\[(8)\] S\[(8)\] S\[(8)\] Use (See EC 9.2620): (9) (9) (9) Uses not specifically listed in this Table 9.2160 that are listed under the in Table 9.2630. Lodging \[Homeless Shelter not in existence as of January 1, 1984\] Trade (Retail and Wholesale) \[Regional Distribution Center\] \[Wholesale Trade (excluding regional distribution center)\] Section 3 . Subsection (2) of Section 9.2451 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.2451 Special Use Limitations for Table 9.2450. (2) Special Allowances for properties with frontage on major arterial streets in the E-2 zone. On lots with frontage on a major arterial street, the uses allowed in Table 9.2450 subject to this standard shall not exceed 30,000 square feet of building area per development site. This square footage limitation shall apply only to new development, and it shall not preclude reuse of existing buildings. Such uses are not allowed on lots without frontage on major arterial streets. Section 4 . 9.2461(8) of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: Table 9.2461(8) Outdoor Storage and Display-Setbacks and Landscaping E-1E-2 I-2I-3 Outdoor Storage Adjacent to a street. Permitted: Yes Yes Yes Yes Setback: 20 feet 15 feet 10 feet 10 feet Ordinance - Page 2 of 16 ATTACHMENT B Table 9.2461(8) Outdoor Storage and Display-Setbacks and Landscaping E-1 E-2 I-2 I-3 Landscape: Low Screen Low Screen High \[Wall\] High \[Wall\] Landscape Landscape Screen Screen Standard Standard Landscape Landscape (L-2) (L-2) Standard Standard (L-3) (L-3) Section 5 . Subsection (1) of Section 9.2600 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.2600Purpose of PRO Park, Recreation, and Open Space Zone. The Park, Recreation, and Open Space Zone (PRO) is intended to accomplish all of the following: (1) Implement the Metro Plan \[, Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan,\] and other applicable plans by providing areas that will conserve and preserve a variety of parks, recreation areas, and open spaces to maintain livability of the Section 6 . The introductory paragraph of Section 9.2620 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.2620 PRO Zone Terms. The determination of park classification shall be based on \[the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan or\] absence of a plan, by the city manager. As used with reference to this zone, unless the context requires otherwise, the following words and phrases mean: Section 7 . Table 9.2750 Residential Zone Development Standards (See EC 9.2751 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2750.) R-1 R-1.5 R-2 R-3 R-4 Maximum Building Height (2), (3), (4), (5), (16), (17), (18) Main Building. Does not 30 feet 35 feet 35 feet 50 feet 120 feet include main building on Alley Access Lot in R-1 Main Building on Alley See (18) -- -- -- -- Access Lot in R-1 Maximum Lot Coverage (17), (18) Ordinance - Page 3 of 16 ATTACHMENT B Section 8 . Subsection (2) of Section 9.2777 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.2777 Duplex Division Lot Standards. (2) Land Division Regulations. All applicable regulations for the type of land division process being used must be met except where the duplex division lot standards create different requirements. (a) The existing lot must contain at least 8,000 square feet. (b) The resulting lots will be relatively equal in size with the maximum difference equal to 10 percent or less of the total area of the original lot. (c) The \[average\] lot width is at least 40 feet. (d) The minimum lot area is at least 3,600 feet. Section 9 . Subsection (3) (excluding Table 9.3165(3)) of Section 9.3165 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.3165 S-DR Downtown Riverfront Special Area Zone Parking Requirements. (3) Bicycle Parking . The minimum and maximum parking standards in Table EC (5 9.3165(3) apply instead of the standards in Table 9.6105\[(4)\]). Section 10 . amended to provide as follows: Table 9.3210 S-DW Downtown Westside Special Area Zone Uses and Permit Requirements S-DW Lodging Bed and Breakfast (\[See\] Comply with EC 9.5100(3) for the R-4 zone) S Section 11 . Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: Table 9.3215 S-DW Downtown Westside Special Area Zone Development Standards S-DW Minimum Landscape Area (8) 20% of development (\[Excludes required landscaping for parking areas.\] site Landscape areas may include rooftops or terraces accessible to building occupants.) Ordinance - Page 4 of 16 ATTACHMENT B Section 12 . Subsection (4)(e) of Section 9.3970 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.3970 S-WS Walnut Station Special Area Zone Development Standards Applicable to All Properties in the Walnut Station Special Area Zone. (4) Parking Requirements. (e) Bicycle parking. The following minimum bicycle parking standards apply instead of the standards in Table 9.6105\[(4)\](5). Uses shall provide a minimum number of bicycle parking spaces as designated in Table 9.3970(4)(e) below. Where two options are provided (e.g., 4 spaces, or 1 per dwelling), the option resulting in more bicycle parking shall be used. The remaining standards in EC 9.6105 \[(1-3)\](1-4) and EC 9.6110 are applicable within the S-WS zone. Section 13 . - 9.4130 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is repealed. 9.4130 Use Limitations. In the Commercial Airport Safety overlay zone, the following limitations and standards apply to all uses permitted outright or conditionally in the base zone to which the overlay is applied: (3) Height. The maximum height of structures and objects shall normally be the same as the zones to which the commercial airport safety overlay zone is added. However, no structure shall be erected, altered, or maintained, and no vegetation shall be allowed to penetrate the surface heights of the various sectors as described below and shown on the Airspace plan. These sectors include all land lying beneath the approach surfaces, transitional surfaces, horizontal surfaces, and conical surfaces as they apply to the Eugene Airport. An area located in more than one sector is considered to be only in the sector with the most restrictive height limit. For purposes of this overlay zone, to determine height limits, the datum is mean sea level elevation unless otherwise specified. \[Runway 3-21 Approach Sectors. Runway 3-21 is a non-precision runway. The inner edge of the runway's approach sectors coincide with the width of the runway's primary surface and are 500 feet wide. The approach sectors expand outward uniformly to a width of 3,500 feet at a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet from the primary surface. Their centerlines are a continuation of the runway centerline beginning at the centerpoint coordinates. The surfaces of the Runway 3-21 approach sectors slope 34 feet outward for each 1 foot upward beginning at the end of and at the same elevation as the primary surface and extend to a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet along the extended runway centerline.\] Ordinance - Page 5 of 16 ATTACHMENT B Section 14 . Subsection (2)(a) of Section 9.6210 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.6210 Description of Landscape Standards. (2) Low Screen Landscape Standard (L-2). (a) Required Plant Materials. Low Screen Landscape Standard (L-2) requires the installation and maintenance of all of the following: 1. Low shrubs to form a continuous screen at least 30 inches high within 3 years and maintained at a height not to exceed 42 inches. 2. 1 canopy tree per 30 linear feet as measured along the \[street\] lot line. 3. Living plant materials covering a minimum of 70 percent of the required landscape area within 3 years of planting. A masonry wall or a berm between 30 and 42 inches high shall be permitted as a substitute for the required low shrubs, but the trees and other plant materials are still required. When applied along street lot lines, the masonry wall is to be placed farthest from the street with the required landscaping in between the wall and street. When applied along an abutting property the masonry wall may be placed along the (See Figure 9.6210(2) Low Screen Landscape L-2.) interior lot line. Section 15 .Subsection (4)(a) of Section 9.6640 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.6640 General Provisions. (4) Location Standards. (a) Setbacks. All signs shall comply with the setback requirements beginning at EC 9.2000 through EC \[9.3915\] 9.3980 and EC 9.6745 Setbacks - Intrusions Permitted. Signs may be installed up to 5 feet into the required front yard setback except that freestanding signs up to 5 feet in height in the E-1 zone may be installed at least 5 feet from the front property line. Section 16 . Section 9.7000 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.7000 Introduction. Review of an application to annex property, divide land, develop or use property, or amend this land use code, the Metro Plan, or a refinement plan, shall be processed as provided in sections 9.7000 through \[9.7885\] 9.7835. Section 17 . Section 9.7015 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.7015 Application Completeness Review. The city shall review an application, other than a partition or subdivision final plat, and, within 30 days of its receipt, notify the applicant as to whether the application is complete. If the city determines that the application contains sufficient information for review, the city shall advise the applicant in writing that the application is deemed complete and begin the Ordinance - Page 6 of 16 ATTACHMENT B application review process. If the city determines that the application is incomplete, the city shall advise the applicant in writing of the necessary missing information. The city shall begin review of the application either: (1) Upon receipt of all of the missing information requested by the city; or (2) Upon receipt of some of the missing information and a written statement from the applicant indicating that none of the other missing information will be provided; or (3) Upon receipt of a written statement from the applicant indicating that none of the missing information will be provided. st On the 181 day after being first submitted, the application will be void if the applicant has been notified of the missing information and has not complied with (1), (2), or (3) of this section. Section 18 . Subsection (6) of Section 9.7230 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.7230 Expiration. (6) Approvals for \[S\]site review and standards review \[approvals\] not considered as part of another land use application and modifications of such approvals shall be effective for 18 months after the effective date of approval. Within that time, the applicant shall submit a final plan and an application for a development permit. Prior to the expiration date, the applicant may submit a modification requesting a change to the commencement or expiration time period. Site review or standards review approvals that are considered as part of another land use application shall be effective for the same time period as the primary land use application. Section 19 . Section 9.7405 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.7405 Type IV Application Requirements and Criteria Reference. The following applications are reviewed under the Type IV review process according to the requirements and criteria set forth for each application as reflected in the beginning reference column in Table 9.7405. Table 9.7405 Type IV Application Requirements and Criteria Type IV ApplicationsBeginning Reference Refinement Plan Amendment, Site Specific Change EC 9.8421 Land Use Code Amendment, Site Specific Change EC 9.8060 Street Name Change EC 9.8475 Zone Changes Processed Concurrent with a site specific EC 9.8850 Refinement Plan amendment* *A zone change to apply the /ND overlay zone shall be processed according to EC 9.4260. Ordinance - Page 7 of 16 ATTACHMENT B Section 20 . Section 9.7505 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.7505 Type V Application Requirements and Criteria Reference. The following applications are reviewed under the Type V review process according to the requirements and criteria set forth for each application as reflected in the beginning reference column in Table 9.7505: Table 9.7505 Type V Application Requirements and Criteria Type V Applications Beginning Reference Land Use Code Amendments that are not limited to a specific EC 9.8060 site Refinement Plan Amendments to policies and/or maps that are not EC 9.8421 limited to a specific site Refinement Plan Adoption or Update EC 9.8421 Zone Change concurrent with a Code Amendment EC 9.8850 Special Area Zone Establishment or Amendment EC 9.3000 Section 21 . Subsection (8) of Section 9.7810 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is repealed and the subsequent subsections are renumbered to provide as follows: 9.7810 Annexation Application Requirements. An application for annexation under the provisions of EC 9.7800 9.7835 may be initiated by motion of the city council or by the filing of an application for an annexation. In addition to the provisions in EC 9.7010 Application Filing, an application for annexation shall include the following: (8) \[ A \] (9) 8 A list of the public service districts presently providing services to the land proposed for annexation (See EC 9.7835). (10) 9 A criteria set out at EC 9.7825. Section 22 . Subsection (1) of Section 9.8005 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.8005Applicability and Effect of Application Requirements, Criteria, and Concurrent Review. (1) Additional provisions addressing the applicability of sections 9.8000 through 9.8865 are found in EC 9.2000 through \[9.3915\] 9.3980, which identify various uses that require approval of a particular land use application. Land use applications referred to in EC 9.8000 through 9.8865 are subject to the procedural requirements in EC 9.7000 through \[9.7885\] 9.7835, Application Procedures, and any additional requirements of EC 9.8000 through 9.8865. To the extent there is a conflict, the provisions in EC 9.8000 through 9.8865 control. Ordinance - Page 8 of 16 ATTACHMENT B Section 23 . Section 9.8085 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.8085 Conditional Use Permit Application Requirements. Conditional use applications shall be processed in accordance with the application procedures contained in EC 9.7000 through \[9.7885\] 9.7835, Application Procedures. When a conditional use permit is required for the proposed use, no development permit application shall be accepted by the city until the hearings official or planning commission approves the conditional use permit, and then only in accordance with the terms and conditions of that conditional use permit. If the proposal includes needed housing, as defined by state statutes, the written statement submitted with the conditional use permit application shall clearly state whether the applicant is electing to use the general approval criteria in EC 9.8090 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria - General instead of the approval criteria found in EC 9.8100 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria - Needed Housing. Section 24 . Subsection (8)(a) of Section 9.8090 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.8090Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria - General. A conditional use permit shall be granted only if the proposal conforms to all of the following criteria: (8) The proposal complies with all applicable standards, including but not limited to: (a) EC 9.2000 through \[9.3915\] 9.3980 regarding lot dimensions, solar standards, and density requirements for the subject zone; Section 25 . Subsection (1)(a) of Section 9.8215 is amended to provide as follows: 9.8215 Partition, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- General. The planning director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a partition, with findings and conclusions. Approval, or approval with conditions, shall be based on compliance with the following criteria: (1) The proposed partition complies with all of the following, unless specifically exempt from compliance through a code provision applicable to a special area zone or overlay zone: (a) Lot standards of EC 9.2000 through \[9.3915\] 9.3980 regarding applicable parcel dimensions and density requirements. Within the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone or the /WQ Water Quality Overlay Zone, no new lot may be created if more than 33% of the lot, as created, would be occupied by either: 1. The combined area of the /WR conservation setback and any portion of the Goal 5 Water Resource Site that extends landward beyond the conservation setback; or 2. The /WQ Management Area. Ordinance - Page 9 of 16 ATTACHMENT B Section 26 . Subsection (2)(a) of Section 9.8220 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.8220 Partition, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- Needed Housing. The planning director shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the partition application. Unless the applicant elects to use the general criteria contained in EC 9.8215 Partition, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- General, where the applicant proposes needed housing, as defined by the State statutes, the planning director shall approve or approve with conditions a partition based on compliance with the following criteria: (2) The proposed partition complies with all of the following: (a) Lot standards of EC 9.2000 through \[9.3915\] 9.3980 regarding applicable parcel dimensions and density requirements. Within the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone or /WQ Water Quality Overlay Zone, no new lot may be created if more than 33% of the lot, as created, would be occupied by either: 1. The combined area of the /WR conservation setback and any portion of the Goal 5 Water Resource Site that extends landward beyond the conservation setback; or 2. The /WQ Management Area. Section 27 . Subsection (10)(a) of Section 9.8320 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended 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: (10) The PUD complies with all of the following: (a) EC 9.2000 through \[9.3915\] 9.3980 regarding lot dimensions and density requirements for the subject zone. Within the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone or /WQ Water Quality Overlay Zone, no new lot may be created if more than 33% of the lot, as created, would be occupied by either: 1. The combined area of the /WR conservation setback and any portion of the Goal 5 Water Resource Site that extends landward beyond the conservation setback; or 2. The /WQ Management Area. Section 28 . Subsection (7)(a) of Section 9.8325 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.8325 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria - Needed Housing. The hearings official shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the PUD application with findings and conclusions. Unless the applicant elects to use the general criteria contained in EC 9.8320 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria - Ordinance - Page 10 of 16 ATTACHMENT B General, where the applicant proposes needed housing, as defined by the State statutes, the hearings official shall approve or approve with conditions a PUD based on compliance with the following criteria: (7) The PUD complies with all of the following: (a) EC 9.2000 through \[9.3915\] 9.3980 regarding lot dimensions and density requirements for the subject zone. Within the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone or /WQ Water Quality Overlay Zone, no new lot may be created if more than 33% of the lot, as created, would be occupied by either: 1. The combined area of the /WR conservation setback and any portion of the Goal 5 Water Resource Site that extends landward beyond the conservation setback; or 2. The /WQ Management Area. Section 29 . Subsection (3) of Section 9.8360 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is repealed and the subsequent subsections are renumbered to provide as follows: 9.8360 Planned Unit Development, Final Plan Application Requirements. In addition to the provisions in EC 9.7010 Application Filing, the following specific requirements apply to PUD final plan applications: (3) \[ Individual phases of a PUD may not be submitted for final PUD review until the boundaries of the phases are legal lots as defined in this land use code, and documents necessary to assure permanent maintenance, at no expense to the city, of buildings, common use facilities, landscaping, open space, and outdoor living areas have been executed and recorded.\] (4) 3 When a PUD or any phase thereof is submitted for final approval, each design team member shall provide written certification that the portion of the project in which he or she was involved continues to comply with the approved tentative plan conditions of approval. (5) 4 Public improvements as required by this land use code or as a condition of tentative plan approval have been completed, or: (a) A performance bond or suitable substitute as agreed upon by the city has been filed with the city finance officer in an amount sufficient to assure the completion of all required public improvements; or (b) A petition for public improvements and for the assessment of the real property for the improvements has been signed by the property owner seeking the subdivision, and the petition has been accepted by the city engineer. Section 30 . Section 9.8423 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.8423 General Requirements. Applications for refinement plan amendments shall be submitted on a form approved by the city manager and reviewed under a Type IV process for site specific amendments or otherwise, a Type V process according to EC 9.7000 through \[9.7885\] 9.7835 Application Procedures. Ordinance - Page 11 of 16 ATTACHMENT B Section 31 . Subsection (3) of Section 9.8430 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is repealed. 9.8430Applicability . Site review provisions shall be applied when any of the following conditions exist: (3) \[ The application proposes needed housing, as defined by State statutes. Applications proposing needed housing shall be reviewed through the Type II site review procedures utilizing the criteria at EC 9.8445 Site Review Approval Criteria - Needed Housing unless the applicant specifically request in the application that the city apply the criteria at EC 9.8440 Site Review Approval Criteria - General.\] Section 32 . Subsection (5)(a) of Section 9.8440 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.8440Site Review Approval Criteria-General . The planning director shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the site review application. Approval or conditional approval shall be based on compliance with the following criteria: (5) The proposal complies with all of the following standards: (a) EC 9.2000 through \[9.3915\] 9.3980 regarding lot dimensions and density requirements for the subject zone. Section 33 . Subsection (4)(a) of Section 9.8445 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.8445 Site Review Approval Criteria- Needed Housing. The planning director shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the site review application. Unless the applicant elects to use the general criteria contained in EC 9.8440 Site Review Approval Criteria - General, where the applicant proposes needed housing, as defined by the State statutes, the planning director shall approve or approve with conditions a site review based on compliance with the following criteria: (4) The proposal complies with all of the following standards: (a) EC 9.2000 through \[9.3915\] 9.3980 regarding lot dimensions and density requirements for the subject zone. Section 34 . Subsection (1)(a) of Section 9.8515 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.8515 Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria - General. The planning director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a proposed subdivision. Approval, or approval with conditions shall be based on compliance with the following criteria: (1) The proposed subdivision complies with the following, unless specifically exempt from compliance through a code provision applicable to a special area zone or overlay zone: (a) EC 9.2000 through \[9.3915\] 9.3980 regarding lot dimensions and density requirements for the subject zone. Within the /WR Water Ordinance - Page 12 of 16 ATTACHMENT B Resources Conservation Overlay Zone or /WQ Water Quality Overlay Zone, no new lot may be created if more than 33% of the lot, as created, would be occupied by either: 1. The combined area of the /WR conservation setback and any portion of the Goal 5 Water Resource Site that extends landward beyond the conservation setback; or 2. The /WQ Management Area; Section 35 . Subsection (3) of Section 9.8520 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.8520 Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria - Needed Housing. The planning director shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the subdivision application. Unless the applicant elects to use the general criteria contained in EC 9.8515 Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- General, where the applicant proposes needed housing, as defined by the State statutes, the planning director shall approve or approve with conditions a subdivision based on compliance with the following criteria: (3) The proposed subdivision complies with all of the following, unless specifically exempt from compliance through a code provision applicable to a special area zone or overlay zone: (a) EC 9.2000 through \[9.3915\] 9.3980 regarding lot dimensions and density requirements for the subject zone. Within the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone or /WQ Water Quality Overlay Zone, no new lot may be created if more than 33% of the lot, as created, would be occupied by either: 1. The combined area of the /WR conservation setback and any portion of the Goal 5 Water Resource Site that extends landward beyond the conservation setback; or 2. The /WQ Management Area. Section 36 . Subsection (3) of Section 9.8705 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.8705Applicability of Vacation Procedures. (3) Vacation of public ways and public easements may be applied for by private citizens, public agencies, or the city council in accordance with EC 9.7000 through \[9.7885\] 9.7835 Application Procedures. Section 37 . Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 9.8710 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide as follows: 9.8710Vacations, Application Requirements. (1) Vacation of unimproved public easements shall be considered in accordance with the Type I Application Procedures contained in EC 9.7000 through Ordinance - Page 13 of 16 ATTACHMENT B \[9.7885\] 9.7835 and the approval criteria contained in EC 9.8715. In the case of public utility easements, statements of concurrence with the vacation from affected utility providers must be submitted with the application. (2) Vacation of improved public easements, unimproved public right-of-way, and vacation and rededication of unimproved public rights-of-way, except improved public easements and public right-of-way located within undeveloped subdivision or partition plats, shall be considered in accordance with the Type II Application Procedures contained in EC 9.7000 through \[9.7885\] 9.7835 and the approval criteria contained in EC 9.8720. In the case of public utility easements, letters of concurrence to the vacation from affected utility providers must be submitted with the application. Section 38 . Section 9.8750 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.8750Purpose of Variances . The provisions of EC 9.5750(9), 9.6708, and 9.8750 through 9.8760 allow for partial or full exemption from specific land use code standards only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, or topography, the strict application of those regulations would deny the property owner uses enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zones. Any variance granted shall be subject to conditions that ensure the variance does not constitute a granting of special uses inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. The city shall not grant variances which allow uses not on the applicable list of allowed uses specified in EC 9.2000 through \[9.3915\] 9.3980 of this land use code. Section 39 . Subsection (1) of Section 9.8755 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.8755Applicability. Unless specified otherwise in another land use code section, the planning director may grant variances only to the standards prescribed in: (1) EC 9.2000 to \[9.3915\] 9.3980 for the following: (a) Building Height. (b) Fences and Walls. (c) Front Yard Setbacks. (d) Interior Yard Setbacks. Section 40 . Subsection (4) of Section 9.8760 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.8760 Approval Criteria for Variances. The planning director shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny a variance, with findings and conclusions thereon following a Type II process. Approval, or conditional approval shall be based on compliance with all the following criteria: (4) In addition to the above criteria, the following 3 criteria apply to variances from code sections that apply to EC 9.6410 Motor Vehicle Parking Standards, Ordinance - Page 14 of 16 ATTACHMENT B and from EC 9.2000 to \[9.3915\] 9.3980 base zone regulations as applied to fences and walls. (a) Neither present nor anticipated future traffic volumes generated by the use of the site or uses of the sites in the vicinity reasonably require strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation. (b) The granting of the variance will not result in the parking or loading of vehicles on public streets in such a manner as to interfere with the free flow of traffic on the streets. (c) The granting of the variance will not create a safety hazard or any other condition inconsistent with the objectives of this land use code. Section 41 . Subsection (1) of Section 9.8810 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.8810 General Requirements. (1) Willamette Greenway permit applications shall be considered in accordance with the Type III application procedures contained in EC 9.7000 through EC \[9.7885\] 9.7835 Application Procedures unless considered concurrently with a Type IV or Type V application. Section 42 . Subsection (5) of Section 9.8855 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.8855Applicability. Changes in zoning, including the application of or change of an overlay zone or special area zone shall be processed as a Type III application as provided in EC 9.7300 through EC 9.7340 Type III Application Procedures, with the following exceptions: (5) The proposed zone change is processed concurrently with an amendment to this land use code; in which case, the zone change shall be processed as a Type IV or Type V application as provided in EC 9.7400 through EC 9.7455 Type IV Application Procedures \[for in\] and EC 9.7500 through EC 9.7560 Type V Application Procedures. Section 43. The findings set forth in Exhibit A attached to this Ordinance are adopted as findings in support of this Ordinance. Section 44. 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. Ordinance - Page 15 of 16 ATTACHMENT B Section 45. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. Section 46. This Ordinance shall take effect pursuant to Section 32 of the Eugene Charter 2002, or on the date of its acknowledgement as provided in ORS 197.625, whichever is later. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this ___ day of ________________, 2016 ____ day of ______________, 2016 ____________________________ _____________________________ City Recorder Mayor Ordinance - Page 16 of 16 EXHIBIT A Findings Annual Maintenance of the Land Use Code (City File CA 16-3) Findings Eugene Code Section 9.8065 requires that the following approval criteria (in bold 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 amendments do 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. A Notice of Proposed Amendment was filed with the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development on June 6, 2016. A public hearing was scheduled before the Planning Commission on July 12, 2016. A public hearing before the City Council was held October 24, 2016. Consistent with code requirements, the Planning Commission public hearing and the City Council public hearing on the proposal was duly noticed to all neighborhood organizations in Eugene, community groups and individuals who have requested notice. In addition, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was also published in the Register Guard. Information concerning the proposed amendments, including the dates of the public hearings, were posted on the City of Eugene websites. These processes afford ample opportunity for citizen involvement consistent with Goal 1. Therefore, the ordinance 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. Eugene land use code specifies the procedure and criteria that were used in considering these amendments. 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 the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. There are no exceptions to Statewide Planning Goal 2 required for these amendments. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2. Findings - 1 EXHIBIT A 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 urban growth boundary. 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, landslides, earthquakes and related hazards, tsunamis and wildfires. The Goal prohibits a development in natural hazard areas without appropriate safeguards. The amendments do not affect 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 EXHIBIT A 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 amendments do not affect the Citys provisions for or access to 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. Goal 9 requires cities to evaluate the supply and demand of commercial land relative to community economic objectives. 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 communities to provide an adequate supply of residential buildable land to accommodate estimated housing needs for a 20-year planning period. The amendments do not impact the supply of residential buildable land. No land is being re-designated from residential use to a nonresidential use, and the amendments do not otherwise diminish the lands available for residential use. 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 affect 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) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or (c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. (A)Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (B)Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C)Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise Findings - 3 EXHIBIT A projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. The amendments do not change the functional classification of a transportation facility, change the standards implementing a functional classification system or degrade the preformation of a facility otherwise projected to not meet performance standards. Therefore, the amendments do not have a significant effect under (a), (b) or (c). Therefore, the amendments do not significantly affect any existing or future transportation facilities. Based on the above findings, the amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12. 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 do not contain any changes that affect the Willamette River Greenway regulations, 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 amendments do not include any change in adopted land use designations or policy, nor does it change any refinement plans. There are no policies or other applicable provisions in the Metro Plan or adopted refinement plans that specifically serve as mandatory approval criteria in this instance or otherwise limit the expiration period for approved land use applications. Therefore, the amendments comply with the above criterion. (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. Findings - 4