HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3: Minor Code Amendments and Land Use Regulations
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Action:
Minor Code Amendments
Ordinance A: An Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations; Amending Sections
9.0020, 9.0500, 9.2160, 9.2450, 9.2630, 9.2683, 9.2740, 9.2741, 9.2751, 9.2760, 9.2761,
9.2775, 9.3310, 9.3810, 9.3910, 9.5500, 9.6790 9.6791, 9.7010, 9.7055, 9.7105, 9.7205,
9.7230, 9.8320, 9.8430, 9.8555, and 4.330 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding a New
Section 9.7007 to that Code; and Providing an Effective Date
and
Ordinance B: An Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations; Amending Section
9.2751 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Effective Date and a Sunset Date
Meeting Date: August 11, 2008 Agenda Item Number: 3
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Alissa Hansen
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541/682-5508
ISSUE STATEMENT
The City Council will take action on an ordinance concerning minor amendments to the Eugene Land
Use Code (Chapter 9).
BACKGROUND
On June 16, 2008, the City Council held a public hearing to consider land use code amendments on 18
topics that were primarily raised by community members to address code concerns, with the remaining
topics referred by the council. At the public hearing, the majority of the testimony centered around two
of the 18 amendment topics: #5, Building Height Transitions in South University Neighborhood
Association, and #7, Required Parking for Multi-Family Developments in West University and South
University Neighborhood Associations. Testimony given at the City Council public hearing on these
two amendments was divided, while testimony on the other topics was generally in support.
To that end, two separate and independent ordinances are provided for the City Council’s consideration.
The first, Ordinance A, contains amendments on the remaining 16 topics, and mirrors the Planning
Commission’s recommendations on these amendments. As noted above, public testimony on these
topics was generally supportive. Additionally, in response to City Council direction regarding the
applicant/neighborhood meeting amendment, this ordinance includes code language that requires the site
plan submitted to the City as part of a land use application be in substantial conformance with the
project presented at the neighborhood/applicant meeting.
The second, Ordinance B, contains amendment #5, Building Height Transitions in the South University
Neighborhood Association, as revised by the neighborhood, and also contains language to forward
amendments #5 and #7 to the Infill Compatibility Standards project for further consideration. Ordinance
B has been revised to contain a sunset date so that the ordinance automatically sunsets and is repealed 18
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080811\S0808113.doc
months from the date of adoption. As drafted, Ordinance B does not contain amendment #7. However,
two alternatives for addressing amendment #7 are provided as separate motions. The text of these
alternatives can be found in Attachment C. In the event one of the alternatives for amendment #7 is
adopted, Attachment D contains replacement Statewide Planning Goal 12 findings specific to this
amendment that must also be adopted. Ordinance B and the alternatives are summarized below:
Ordinance B:
·Includes amendment #5, Building Height Transition in South University Neighborhood Association,
as revised by neighborhood (see Attachment A).
·In addition to the above amendment, includes language to forward amendment topics #5 and #7 to
the Infill Compatibility Standards project for further consideration to allow for a more
comprehensive review and analysis of the issues and policy choices, as well as identification of long
term solutions.
Alternative B1:
·In addition to the amendment included above in Ordinance B, this alternative includes the version of
amendment #7, Required Parking for Multi-Family Developments in West University and South
University Neighborhood Associations, reviewed by Planning Commission and included in draft
ordinance at the public hearing. This version would increase the required parking ratio for multi-
family developments in the R-3 Limited High Density Residential and R-4 High Density Residential
zones that are south and west of the University of Oregon, and within the boundaries of the West
University Neighbors and the South University Neighborhood Association. This amendment would
require a minimum of one parking space for the first bedroom and an additional 0.5 parking spaces
per each additional bedroom. Fractions would be rounded up to the next whole number.
Alternative B2:
·In addition to the amendment included above in Ordinance B, this alternative includes a modified
version of amendment #7, Required Parking for Multi-Family Developments in West University and
South University Neighborhood Associations, that would apply to the same geographic and zoning
boundaries as in Alternative B1, and would apply the West University Neighbors’ original proposal
of one parking space for dwelling units with two bedrooms or less per unit, and a minimum of two
parking spaces for dwelling units with three or more bedrooms per unit.
On July 9, 2008, the City Council held a work session to discuss the options outlined in the July 14,
2008, agenda packet. A memorandum responding to the City Council’s questions and comments from
the June 4, 2008, work session and the June 16, 2008, public hearing on the minor code amendments
was provided in the City Council’s June 26, 2008, packet. For convenience, the memorandum is also
attached to this Agenda Item Summary.
Although the City Council was originally scheduled to take action on these ordinances on July 14, 2008,
other items on that night’s agenda took longer than expected, and action on this item was delayed. Prior
to that meeting, several motions to modify the ordinances were proposed by City Councilors.
Attachment F contains those motions, organized by ordinance and topic.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The City Council has included minor code amendments as a priority item on the Planning Division
Work Program. This proposal is the second of two phases in staff’s effort to complete this task.
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080811\S0808113.doc
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The City Council may consider the following options:
1.Adopt the draft ordinance in Attachment A (Ordinance A)
2.Adopt the draft ordinances in Attachment A and Attachment B (Ordinance A and Ordinance B)
3.Adopt one or both of the draft ordinances (Ordinance A or Ordinance B) with specific modifications
as determined by the City Council
4.Deny the proposed ordinances
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Option 2: The City Manager recommends the City Council adopt Ordinance A and Ordinance B
(Attachment A and Attachment B).
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to adopt an ordinance concerning land use regulations; amending Sections 9.0020, 9.0500,
9.2160, 9.2450, 9.2630, 9.2683, 9.2740, 9.2741, 9.2751, 9.2760, 9.2761, 9.2775, 9.3310, 9.3810, 9.3910,
9.5500, 9.6790 9.6791, 9.7010, 9.7055, 9.7105, 9.7205, 9.7230, 9.8320, 9.8430, 9.8555, and 4.330 of the
Eugene Code, 1971; adding a new section 9.7007 to that Code; and providing an effective date.
Move to adopt an ordinance concerning land use regulations; amending Section 9.2751 of the Eugene
Code, 1971: and providing an effective date and a sunset date.
Move to direct the City Manager to forward amendment topics #5, Building Height Transitions in South
University Neighborhood Association, and #7, Required Parking for Multi-Family Developments in
West University and South University Neighborhood Associations, to the Infill Compatibility Standards
project for further consideration to allow for a more comprehensive review and analysis of the issues
and policy choices, as well as identification of long-term solutions.
ATTACHMENTS
A.Draft Ordinance A and Findings
B.Draft Ordinance B and Findings
C.Text of Alternatives B1 and B2
D.Replacement Goal 12 Findings for Alternative B1 or B2
E.Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council, dated June 25, 2008
F.Motions Proposed by City Councilors
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Alissa Hansen
Telephone: 541/682-5508
Staff E-Mail: alissa.h.hansen@ci.eugene.or.us
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080811\S0808113.doc
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE A
ORDINANCE NO. ___________
AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING LAND USE REGULATIONS;
AMENDING SECTIONS 9.0020, 9.0500, 9.2160, 9.2450, 9.2630, 9.2683,
9.2740, 9.2741, 9.2751, 9.2760, 9.2761, 9.2775, 9.3310, 9.3810, 9.3910,
9.5500, 9.6790 9.6791, 9.7010, 9.7055, 9.7105, 9.7205, 9.7230, 9.8320,
9.8430, 9.8555, AND 4.330 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; ADDING A
NEW SECTION 9.7007 TO THAT CODE; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Section 9.0020 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as
follows:
9.0020 Purpose.
The purpose of the land use code is to protect and promote the health,
safety, and general welfare of the public and to preserve and enhance the
economic, social, and environmental qualities of the community.
(1)The land use code is intended to effectively and efficiently implement
applicable state and federal laws, the Metro Plan, and the following
policies from the Growth Management Study:
(a) Support the existing Eugene Urban Growth Boundary by taking
actions to increase density and use existing vacant land and
under-used land within the boundary more efficiently. (Policy 1)
(b) Encourage in-fill, mixed-use, redevelopment, and higher density
development. (Policy 2)
(c) Encourage a mix of businesses and residential uses downtown
using incentives and zoning. (Policy 3)
(d) Improve the appearance of buildings and landscapes. (Policy 4)
(e) Work cooperatively with Metro area partners (Springfield and Lane
County) and other nearby cities to avoid urban sprawl and
preserve the rural character in areas outside the urban growth
boundaries. (Policy 5)
(f) Increase density of new housing development while maintaining
the character and livability of individual neighborhoods. (Policy 6)
(g) Provide for a greater variety of housing types. (Policy 7)
(h) Promote construction of affordable housing. (Policy 8)
(i) Mitigate the impacts of new and/or higher density housing, in-fill,
and redevelopment on neighborhoods through design standards,
open space and housing maintenance programs, and continuing
historic preservation and neighborhood planning programs.
(Policy 9)
(j) Encourage the creation of transportation-efficient land use
patterns and implementation of nodal development concepts.
(Policy 10)
ORDINANCE A
(k) Increase the use of alternative modes of transportation by
improving the capacity, design, safety, and convenience of the
transit, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation systems. (Policy 11)
(l) Encourage alternatives to the use of single-occupant vehicles
through demand management techniques. (Policy 12)
(m) Focus future street improvements on relieving pressure on the
city’s most congested roadways and intersections to maintain an
acceptable level of mobility for all modes of transportation. (Policy
13)
(n) Development shall be required to pay the full cost of extending
infrastructure and services, except that the city will examine ways
to subsidize the costs of providing infrastructure or offer other
incentives that support higher-density, in-fill, mixed uses, and
nodal development. (Policy 14)
(o) Target publicly-financed infrastructure extensions to support
development for higher densities, in-fill, mixed uses, and nodal
development. (Policy 15)
(p) Focus efforts to diversify the local economy and provide family-
wage jobs principally by supporting local, and environmentally-
sensitive businesses. Direct available financial and regulatory
incentives to support these efforts. (Policy 16)
(q) Protect and improve air and water quality and protect natural areas
of good habitat value through a variety of means such as better
enforcement of existing regulations, new or revised regulations, or
other practices. (Policy 17)
(r) Increase the amount and variety of parks and open spaces. (Policy
18)
(s) Expand city efforts to achieve community-based policing. (Policy
19)
These policies shall serve as guidance as the city considers proposed
changes to this land use code.
(2)The land use code is designed to help:
(1)
a Attain community goals and policies.
(2)
bAllow amendments to local plans and regulatory measures to address
changes in circumstances and public values.
(3)
c Ensure an appropriate mix of land uses that provide the economic and
social advantages which result from an orderly, planned use of land.
(4)
d Provide adequate public facilities and services; allow for adequate light,
air, and open space; and protect from fire, flood, and other risks and
dangers.
(5)
e Preserve and restore significant historic resources and increase public
awareness of the community’s historic and cultural heritage.
(6)
f Preserve and enhance environmental resources, the natural scenic
beauty of the area, and aesthetic qualities of the community.
Section 2.
Section 9.0500 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by adding new
definitions of “Alley Access Only Lot/Parcel” and ”Residential Character” in alphabetical
Ordinance -
2
ORDINANCE A
order therein, and amending the definitions of “Building Height,” “Flag Lots,” and
“Kennel,” to provide as follows:
9.0500 Definitions
. As used in this land use code, unless the context requires otherwise,
the following words and phrases mean:
Alley Access Only Lot/Parcel. A lot or parcel whose only legal and
practicable vehicle access to the portion of the lot on which the dwelling(s) or
other main building(s) will be located is from the alley.
Building Height
. The vertical distance above a reference datum measured to the
highest point of the coping of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the
average height of the gables of a pitched or hipped roof. For the purposes of
residential zones, building height shall be the vertical distance above a
reference datum measured to the highest point of the roof. The maximum
height of a stepped or terraced building is the maximum height of all segments of
that building. The reference datum shall be whichever of the following two
measurements results in the greater building height:
(A) The reference datum is the lowest grade when the highest ground surface
within a five-foot horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building is not
more than 10 feet above the lowest grade.
(B) The reference datum is 10 feet higher than the lowest grade when the highest
ground surface described in item (A) above is 10 feet or more above the
lowest grade.
(See Figure 9.0500 Building Height Calculation.)
Flag Lot
. A lot [with less frontage on a public street than is generally required by
this land use code and where that frontage serves primarily as a vehicular access
corridor] located behind another lot except for a narrow portion extending to
the public street which is suitable for vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian
access. The “flag pole” of a flag lot is the access corridor to the buildable “flag
portion” of the lot. [The “flag portion” of the flag lot is located behind a lot that has
(See Figure 9.2775(2) Residential Flag Lot
the generally required street frontage.]
Description.)
Kennel
. An establishment or premises on which [3] 4 or more dogs over 6 months
of age are kept or maintained, whether by owners of the dogs or by persons
providing facilities and care, and whether or not for compensation, not including
the temporary keeping of one additional dog for up to 6 months in any 12-
month period. For purposes of this definition, if the “premises” consists of a
lot that contains a main dwelling and a secondary dwelling unit, the
“premises” means the lot. (See EC 9.2741(2)(a)5.)
Residential Character. A combination of qualities and features that gives
identity to a particular area where the predominant use is housing and that
distinguishes the area from other areas.
Ordinance -
3
ORDINANCE A
Section 3.
The paragraph preceding Table 9.2160 in Section 9.2160 of the
Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows:
9.2160 Commercial Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements.
The following Table
9.2160 Commercial Zone Land Uses and Permit Requirements identifies those uses
in Commercial Zones that are:
(P) Permitted, subject to zone verification.
(SR) Permitted, subject to an approved site review plan or an approved final
planned unit development.
(C) Subject to a conditional use permit or an approved final planned unit
development.
(S) Permitted, subject to zone verification and the Special Development
Standards for Certain Uses beginning at EC 9.5000.
(#) The numbers in ( ) in the table are uses that have special use limitations
described in EC 9.2161.
Examples shown in Table 9.2160 are for informational purposes, and are not
exclusive. Table 9.2160 does not indicate uses subject to Standards Review.
Applicability of Standards Review procedures is set out at EC 9.8465.
Section 4.
The paragraph preceding Table 9.2450 in Section 9.2450 of the
Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows:
9.2450 Industrial Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements
. The following Table 9.2450
Industrial Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements identifies those uses in the
Industrial Zones that are:
(P) Permitted, subject to zone verification.
(SR) Permitted, subject to an approved site review plan or an approved final
planned unit development.
(C) Subject to a conditional use permit or an approved final planned unit
development.
(S) Permitted subject to zone verification and the Special Development Standards
for Certain Uses beginning at EC 9.5000.
(#) The numbers in ( ) in the table are uses that have special use limitations that
are described in EC 9.2451.
The examples listed in Table 9.2450 are for informational purposes and are not
exclusive. Table 9.2450 does not indicate uses subject to Standards Review.
Applicability of Standards Review procedures is set out at EC 9.8465.
Section 5.
The paragraph preceding Table 9.2630 in Section 9.2630 of the
Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows:
Ordinance -
4
ORDINANCE A
9.2630 PRO Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements.
The following Table 9.2630
Park, Recreation, and Open Space Zone Uses and Permit Requirements identifies
those uses in the PRO zone that are:
(P) Permitted if use complies with special setbacks shown in Table 9.2640. If the
use does not meet the special setbacks in Table 9.2640, the use may be
approved through the conditional use permit process. Shall require zone
verification.
(SR) Permitted, subject to an approved site review plan or an approved final
planned unit development.
(C) Subject to a conditional use permit or an approved final planned unit
development.
(S) Permitted, subject to the Special Development Standards for Certain Uses
beginning at EC 9.5000 and zone verification.
(#) The numbers in ( ) in the table are uses that have special use limitations that
are described in EC 9.2631.
Entertainment and recreational uses allowed in other zones are subject to the
standards set out for those zones. Any examples reflected in Table 9.2630 are for
informational purposes only and are not exclusive. Table 9.2630 does not indicate
uses subject to Standards Review. Applicability of Standards Review procedures is
set out at EC 9.8465.
Section 6.
Subsection (2) of Section 9.2683 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is
amended to provide as follows:
9.2683Special Use Limitations.
(2) Permitted Uses Subject to Site Review.
When a proposed public use, other
than those listed in subsection (3) of this section, is to be located within 300
feet of land in the broad zone category of residential, and such use will
generate the need for a Traffic Impact Analysis according to EC 9.8670
Applicability, such use shall be subject to an approved site review application
[according to the Type II procedures] or an approved final planned unit
development application.
Section 7.
The paragraph preceding Table 9.2740 in Section 9.2740 of the
Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows:
9.2740 Residential Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements.
The following Table
9.2740 Residential Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements identifies those uses
in the residential zones that are:
(P) Permitted, subject to zone verification.
(SR) Permitted, subject to an approved site review plan or an approved final
planned unit development.
(C) Subject to an approved conditional use permit or an approved final
planned unit development.
(PUD) Permitted, subject to an approved final planned unit development.
Ordinance -
5
ORDINANCE A
(S) Permitted, subject to zone verification and the Special Development
Standards for Certain Uses beginning at EC 9.5000.
(#) The numbers in ( ) in the table are uses that have special use limitations
that are described in EC 9.2741 Special Use Limitations for Table
9.2740.
The examples listed in Table 9.2740 are for informational purposes and are not
exclusive. Table 9.2740 does not indicate uses subject to Standards Review.
Applicability of Standards Review procedures is set out at EC 9.8465.
Section 8.
Subsections (2)(a) and (4) of Section 9.2741 of the Eugene Code,
1971, are amended to provide as follows:
9.2741 Special Use Limitations for Table 9.2740.
(2) Secondary Dwellings.
Secondary dwellings are only permitted in R-1 and
are subject to the standards below.
(a) Secondary dwellings that are within the same building as the primary
dwelling shall comply with all of the following:
1. The dwelling shall not exceed 800 square feet unless occupying
the full story of a multi-story structure with ground floor residential
use.
2. Either the primary dwelling or the secondary dwelling shall be
occupied by the property owner.
3. There shall be at least 1 off-street parking space on the property.
4. Except for flag lots, the lot shall be at least 4,500 square feet.
Flag lots shall contain at least 13,500 square feet to permit a
secondary dwelling.
5. No more than 3 dogs shall be permitted on the lot, not
including the temporary keeping of one additional dog for up
to 6 months in any 12-month period.
(4) Duplex.
When located in R-1, a duplex shall conform to 1 of the following
standards:
(a) The duplex was legally established on August 1, 2001.
(b) The duplex is on a corner lot abutting public streets as provided in EC
9.2760 Residential Zone Lot Standards, which is at least 8,000 square
feet in size.
(c) The duplex is on a lot that was identified as being developable for a
duplex [lot in] on a subdivision plat.
Section 9.
Subsections (1)(c), (3) and (13)(b) of Section 9.2751 of the Eugene
Code, 1971, are amended to provide as follows:
9.2751 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2750.
(1)Density.
Ordinance -
6
ORDINANCE A
(c) For purposes of calculating net density, the acreage of land considered
part of the residential use shall exclude public [property, including] and
private streets and alleys, public parks, and other public facilities. In
calculating the minimum net density required for a specific lot or
development site, the planning director shall round down to the previous
whole number. In calculating the maximum net density allowed for
a specific lot or development site less than 13,500 square feet in
area, the planning director shall round up to the next whole
number for fractions of .75 or above and round down for fractions
below .75. In calculating the maximum net density allowed for a
specific lot or development site 13,500 square feet or greater in area,
the planning director shall round up to the next whole number. At the
request of the developer, the acreage also may exclude natural or
historic resources. For purposes of this section, natural resources
include those designated for protection in an adopted plan and the area
within natural resources protection or conservation setbacks that have
been applied to the development site. For purposes of this section,
historic resources include historic property and resources identified in an
official local inventory as “primary” or “secondary.” It may also include
additional natural or historic resources upon approval of the planning
director.
(3)
Building Height.
(a) In the R-3 and R-4 zone, the maximum building height shall be limited to
30 feet for that portion of the building located within 50 feet from the
abutting boundary of, or directly across an alley from, land zoned R-1.
(b) An additional 7 feet of building height is allowed for roof slopes of
6:12 or steeper in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones.
(13)Fences.
(b) Location and Heights.
1. Fences up to 42 inches in height are permitted within the required
front yard setback. For corner lots or double frontage lots, a
fence between 42 inches and 6 feet in height is permitted
within one of the two front yard setbacks, so long as for
corner lots, this fence cannot extend past a line created by an
extension of the front wall of the dwelling. (See Figure
9.2751(13)(b)1.)
2. Fences up to 6 feet in height are permitted within the required
interior yard setback.
3. The height of fences that are not located within the required
setback areas is the same as the regular height limits of the zone.
4. Fences must meet the standards in EC 9.6780 Vision Clearance
Area.
Section 10.
The Small Lot entry, Duplex Lot entry, and Triplex Lot entry of the
Lot Area Minimum section, and the Lot Frontage and Lot Width standards in Table
Ordinance -
7
ORDINANCE A
9.2760 set forth in Section 9.2760 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide
as follows:
9.2760 Residential Zone Lot Standards.
The following Table 9.2760 sets forth residential
zone lot standards, subject to the special standards in EC 9.2761.
Table 9.2760 Residential Zone Lot Standards
(See EC 9.2761 Special Standards for Table 9.2760.)
R-1R-1.5R-2R-3R-4
Lot Area Minimum (1)
Small Lots (2) Per Cluster 2,250 2,250 2,250
Subdivision square feet square feet square feet
or PUD or per or per or per
Cluster Cluster Cluster
Subdivision Subdivision Subdivision
or PUD or PUD or PUD
Duplex Lots (in R-1, a duplex
8,000 -- -- -- --
lot[s] shall be indicated on the square feet
final subdivision plat [and
shall be developed] as
developable as a duplex.
Such lots may not be
created by a partition.
Alternatively, a duplex lot
[or] may be located on a
corner lot[s] that contains at
least 8,000 square feet.)
Triplex Lots (in R-1, lots shall 12,000 -- -- -- --
be indicated on the final square feet
subdivision plat as
developable [and shall be
developed] as a triplex. Such
lots may not be created by a
partition.)
Lot Frontage Minimum (1)
[20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet
Interior Lot 50 feet 20 feet
(9) (9) (9)
[20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet
Corner Lot 50 feet 20 feet
(9) (9) (9)
[20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet
Curved Lot 35 feet 20 feet
(9) (9) (9)
Cul-de-sac Bulb Lot 35 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
Residential Flag Lot (4)
1 Lot 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
2 to 4 Lots 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet
Rowhouse Lot 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
Lot Width Minimum (1)
Ordinance -
8
ORDINANCE A
Table 9.2760 Residential Zone Lot Standards
(See EC 9.2761 Special Standards for Table 9.2760.)
R-1R-1.5R-2R-3R-4
[20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet
Interior Lot (7) 50 feet 20 feet
(9) (9) (9)
[20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet
Corner Lot 50 feet 20 feet
(9) (9) (9)
[20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet [20] 35 feet
Curved Lot 35 feet 20 feet
(9) (9) (9)
Cul-de-sac Bulb Lot 35 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
Residential Flag Lot (4) 50 feet -- --
Rowhouse Lot 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
Section 11.
Subsections (1) and (4) are amended, and new Subsections (9) and
(10) are added to Section 9.2761 of the Eugene Code, 1971, to provide as follows:
9.2761 Special Standards for Table 9.2760.
(1)
Lot Standards.
(a) In determining lot area in a residential zone, the area within a
public or private street or alley shall be excluded.
(b) Solar standards may impose a more restrictive lot standard. (See EC
9.2790 Solar Lot Standards.)
(c) Lot area, frontage, and width minimums may be modified with an
approved cluster subdivision in R-1 or Planned Unit Development (PUD)
in any zone.
(4)
No variances to residential flag lot standards are allowed. Minimum lot area
excludes the pole portion of the lot. Other residential flag lot standards also
apply. (See EC 9.2775 Residential Flag Lot Standards for R-1, R-2, R-3 and
R-4.)
(9) Lot width and lot frontage minimums in R-2, R-3 and R-4 can be reduced
to 20 feet as part of an approved site review plan, planned unit
development, or cluster subdivision. Unless otherwise approved
through a planned unit development or cluster subdivision, at no point,
for the entire extent of the lot, shall the side lot lines be less than 20 feet
apart.
(10) Alley Access Only Lots/Parcels can be created only through an
approved cluster subdivision in the R-1 zone or an approved planned
unit development in any zone.
Section 12.
The caption for Section 9.2775 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is
amended to provide as follows:
9.2775 Residential Flag Lot Standards for R-1.
, R-2, R-3 and R-4
Ordinance -
9
ORDINANCE A
Section 13.
The paragraph preceding Table 9.3310 in Section 9.3310 of the
Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows:
9.3310 S-E Elmira Road Special Area Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements.
The
following Table 9.3310 S-E Elmira Road Special Area Zone Uses and Permit
Requirements identifies those uses in the S-E zone that are:
(P) Permitted, subject to zone verification.
(SR) Permitted, subject to an approved site review plan or an approved final
planned unit development.
(C) Subject to an approved conditional use permit or an approved final
planned unit development.
(PUD) Permitted, subject to an approved final planned unit development.
(S) Permitted subject to zone verification and the Special Development
Standards for Certain Uses beginning at EC 9.5000.
(#) The numbers in ( ) in the table are uses that have special use limitations
that are described in EC 9.3311.
The examples listed in Table 9.3310 are for informational purposes and are not
exclusive. Table 9.3310 does not indicate uses subject to Standards Review.
Applicability of Standards Review procedures is set out at EC 9.8465.
Section 14.
The paragraph preceding Table 9.3810 in Section 9.3810 of the
Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows:
9.3810 S-RN Royal Node Special Area Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements.
The
following Table 9.3810 S-RN Royal Node Special Area Zone Uses and Permit
Requirements identifies those uses in the S-RN zone that are:
(P) Permitted, subject to zone verification.
(C) Subject to an approved conditional use permit.
(S) Permitted subject to zone verification and the Special Development Standards
for Certain Uses beginning at EC 9.5000.
(SR) Permitted, subject to an approved site review plan or approved final planned
unit development.
(#) The numbers in ( ) in the table are uses that have special use limitations
described in EC 9.3811 Special Use Limitations for Table 9.3810.
Examples listed in Table 9.3810 are for informational purposes and are not
exclusive. Table 9.3810 does not indicate uses subject to Standards Review.
Applicability of Standards Review procedures is set out at EC 9.8465.
Section 15.
The paragraph preceding Table 9.3910 in Section 9.3910 of the
Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows:
9.3910 S-W Whiteaker Special Area Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements.
The
Ordinance -
10
ORDINANCE A
following Table 9.3910 S-W Whiteaker Special Area Zone Uses and Permit
Requirements identifies those uses in the S-W zone that are:
(P) Permitted, subject to zone verification.
(SR) Permitted, subject to an approved site review plan or an approved final
planned unit development.
(C) Subject to conditional use permit or an approved final planned unit
development.
(PUD) Permitted, subject to an approved final planned unit development.
(S) Permitted subject to zone verification and the Special Development
Standards for Certain Uses beginning at EC 9.5000.
(#) The numbers in ( ) in the table are uses that have special use limitations
that are described in EC 9.3911.
Examples of uses in Table 9.3910 are for informational purposes and not exclusive.
Table 9.3910 does not include uses subject to Standards Review. Applicability of
Standards Review procedures is set out at EC 9.8465.
Section 16.
Subsections (9)(c) and (11)(c) of Section 9.5500 of the Eugene
Code, 1971, are amended to provide as follows:
9.5500 Multiple-Family Standards.
(9) Open Space.
Open space that complies with Table 9.5500(9) and the
standards in this subsection (9) shall be provided unless exempt under other
provisions of this land use code.
(c) Open Space Credit.
1. An open space credit, not to exceed 25 percent of the total open
space requirement, may be applied toward compliance with that
requirement, for developments that are located within one-quarter
mile of a public park as measured along the route of the
shortest existing public way or private street.
2. Required setback areas and areas required to comply with
perimeter parking lot landscape standards may be applied toward
the minimum open space requirements when the minimum
dimension of such space is 15 feet or greater.
(11) Site Access and Internal Circulation.
(c) Alley Access. Development sites with alley access, either at the rear
yard or along the side yard, shall use the alley to provide vehicle
access to the development site if either:
1. The alley right-of-way width is 20 feet for the length of the
alley between the development site and the street; or
2. The development site’s only street frontage is on an arterial
or collector street.
In the[se] instances described in 1. or 2., no direct access to the street,
Ordinance -
11
ORDINANCE A
(See Figure 9.5500(11)(b)
other than by the alley, shall be permitted.
Multiple-Family Driveways.)
In other instances, alley access is
optional.
Section 17.
A new Subsection (6) is added to Section 9.6790 of the Eugene
Code, 1971, to provide as follows:
9.6790 Stormwater Management Manual.
In order to implement Section 9.6791 through
9.6797 of this code, the City Manager shall adopt in accordance with EC 2.019, City
Manager – Administrative and Rulemaking Authority and Procedures, a Stormwater
Management Manual. The Stormwater Management Manual may contain forms,
maps and facility agreements and shall include requirements that are consistent with
the following goals:
(6) Except as otherwise allowed by this land use code, allow disturbances
or development within drainage ways only when all of the following
conditions exist:
(a) The disturbance or development will not impede or reduce flows
within the drainage way;
(b) The disturbance or development will not increase erosion
downstream; and
(c) The constructed pipe system is sized to convey all of the runoff
from upstream watershed when the upstream watershed is
completely developed.
Section 18.
Subsection (3) of Section 9.6791 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is
amended to provide as follows:
9.6791 Stormwater Destination.
(3)Standards.
Stormwater drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed
according to adopted plans and policies, and in accordance with standards in
EC Chapters 6 and 7, and the stormwater destination provisions and the
facility design requirements set forth in the Stormwater Management Manual.
On-site infiltration is the preferred stormwater destination for
development in the River Road-Santa Clara Basin. An applicant proposing
a new development must submit documentation to the city showing the
stormwater destination into which the proposed development will be disposed.
The documentation must establish that the new development will be disposed
of into existing stormwater drainage facilities that, considering all
developments that have received tentative or final plan approval as of the date
the developer submits a complete application, have the capacity to handle the
stormwater runoff that will be generated by the proposed new development for
the flood control design storm, or, if the applicant cannot establish that existing
stormwater drainage facilities have such capacity, the applicant must
Ordinance -
12
ORDINANCE A
construct storm drainage facilities to accommodate the stormwater draining
from the proposed development.
Section 19.
A new Section 9.7007 is added to the Eugene Code, 1971, to
provide as follows:
9.7007 Neighborhood/Applicant Meetings.
(1) This section applies to the following types of land use applications:
(a) Type II: Only tentative subdivisions and cluster subdivisions over
10 lots or those which include public street improvements;
(b) Type III: Only conditional use permits and tentative planned unit
developments;
(c) Type IV applications that are not city-initiated;
(d) Metro Plan amendments that are not city-initiated.
(2) Prior to the submittal of an application listed in subsection (1) above, the
applicant shall host a meeting for the surrounding property owners. The
purpose of this meeting is to provide a means for the applicant and
surrounding property owners and residents to meet to review the
proposal, share information and identify issues regarding the proposal.
The applicant may consider whether to incorporate solutions to these
issues prior to application submittal.
(3) The neighborhood/applicant meeting shall be held on a weekday
evening, starting no earlier than 5:00 p.m. and starting no later than 7:00
p.m., or on a weekend no earlier than 10:00 a.m. and no later than 6:00
p.m., at a location within the city that is in, or is as close as practicable
to, the boundaries of the city-recognized neighborhood association in
which the proposal is located, if any.
(4) If the subject property is located within the boundaries of a city-
recognized neighborhood association, the applicant must contact the
applicable neighborhood association by registered or certified mail,
proposing three possible dates and times for the meeting. The
neighborhood association should reply to the applicant within 14 days
and specify on which of the proposed three suggested dates the
meeting should be held. If the neighborhood association does not reply
to the applicant’s letter within 14 days, the applicant may schedule the
neighborhood meeting on any one of the three proposed dates without
further delay.
(5) The applicant shall mail notice of the meeting:
(a) At least 14 days and no more than 28 days prior to the meeting;
(b) To:
1. Owners and occupants of properties within 300 feet of the
subject property for Type II and IV applications and to owners
and occupants within 500 feet of the property for a Type III
application or a Metro Plan amendment;
2 Any city-recognized neighborhood associations whose
boundaries are within 300 feet of the subject property;
3. The city planning director; and
4. The city engineer; and
Ordinance -
13
ORDINANCE A
(c) That states the date, time and location of the meeting and briefly
discusses the nature and location of the proposal.
(6) Failure of a property owner or occupant to receive notice shall not
invalidate the neighborhood/applicant meeting procedure.
(7) The applicant shall post notice of the meeting by posting a waterproof
sign on the subject property at least 14 days before the meeting. The
notice, containing the information described in (5)(c) above, shall be
supplied by the applicant.
(8) The applicant shall provide the proposed site plan at the meeting for
review.
(9) The applicant shall prepare and keep meeting notes identifying the
major points that were discussed and expressed, and a sign-in sheet
identifying the persons attending.
(10) The applicant is required to hold one meeting prior to submitting an
application for a specific site, but may hold additional meetings if
desired.
(11) If an applicant fails to include in its application the materials described
in EC 9.7010, the application shall be deemed incomplete.
(12) Applications shall be submitted to the city within 180 days of the
neighborhood/applicant meeting. If an application is not submitted in
this time frame, or if the site plan submitted with the application does
not substantially conform to the site plan provided at the meeting, the
applicant shall be required to hold a new neighborhood/applicant
meeting.
Section 20.
Section 9.7010 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as
follows:
9.7010 Application Filing.
Applicants shall be submitted on a form approved by the city
manager, be accompanied by a fee established pursuant to EC Chapter 2, and be
signed by the property owner, unless the applicant is a public agency, in which case
the signature of the property owner is not required. Application materials shall
address each of the criteria and standards applicable to the proposed use including
any requested adjustments to standards as provided in provisions beginning at EC
9.9015. For applications described at EC 9.7007(1), the application shall
include the following materials related to the neighborhood/applicant meeting:
(1) The list of persons to whom notice was mailed pursuant to EC 9.7007(5)
and a signed statement that notice was posted and mailed to those on
the list;
(2) A copy of the notice;
(3) A copy of the meeting notes and sign-in sheet described at EC 9.7007(9);
and
(4) A copy of the site plan presented at the meeting.
Section 21.
The “Partition” and “Subdivision” entries in Table 9.7055 of Section
9.7055 of the Eugene Code, 1971 are amended to provide as follows:
Ordinance -
14
ORDINANCE A
9.7055 Applications and Review Authorities.
Table 9.7055 Applications and Review
Authorities, lists applications and the review authorities for the decision and the
appeal of the decision.
Table 9.7055 Applications and Review Authorities
R = Recommendation, D = Decision Maker, A = Appeal Review Authority
ApplicationTypePlanning Hearings Historic Planning City
DirectorOfficialReview CommissionCouncil
Board
Partition:
- Tentative Plan II D A
[II] I
- Final Plat D [A]
Subdivision:
- Tentative Plan II D A
[II] I
- Final Plat D [A]
Section 22.
Table 9.7105 in Section 9.7105 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is
amended to provide as follows:
9.7105 Type I Application Requirements and Criteria Reference.
The following
applications are reviewed under the Type I process according to the requirements
and criteria set forth for each application as reflected in the beginning reference
column in Table 9.7105.
Table 9.7105 Type I Application Requirements and Criteria
Type I ApplicationsBeginning Reference
Historic Landmark, Removal of Designation EC 9.8150
Partition – Final Plat EC 9.8225
Property Line Adjustment EC 9.8400
Subdivision – Final Plat EC 9.8550
Temporary Manufactured Dwelling Hardship Permit EC 9.8600
Temporary Manufactured Dwelling Hardship Permit - Renewal EC 9.7120(2)
Vacation of an Unimproved Public Easement EC 9.8700
/WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone – Map or Zone Error EC 9.4960(2)
Section 23.
The entries for “Partition” and “Subdivision” in Table 9.7205 of
Section 9.7205 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide as follows:
9.7205 Type II Application Requirements and Criteria Reference.
The following
applications are reviewed under the Type II review process according to the
requirements and criteria set forth for each application as reflected in the beginning
Ordinance -
15
ORDINANCE A
reference column in Table 9.7205:
Table 9.7205 Type II Application Requirements and Criteria
Type II ApplicationsBeginning Reference
Partition:
- Tentative Plan EC 9.8200
[- Final Plat] [EC 9.8225]
Subdivision:
- Tentative Plan EC 9.8500
[- Final Plat] [EC 9.8550]
Section 24.
The entries for “Partition” and “Subdivision” in Table 9.7230 of
Section 9.7230 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide as follows:
9.7230 Expiration.
(1)
The planning director’s approval of an application shall expire in 12 months,
18 months, or 36 months from the effective date of approval, depending upon
the type of land use application as specified in Table 9.7230 Expiration of
Type II Application Approvals, or as provided in subsections (2) through (9) of
this section. If an application approval has expired according to any of the
conditions stated in subsections (2) through (9), the original application
approval is revoked and a new application must be filed.
Table 9.7230 Expiration of Type II Application Approvals
Application12 months18 months36 months
Partition:
- Tentative Plan X
[- Final Plat (same as Tentative Plan expiration)]
Subdivision:
- Tentative Plan X
[- Final Plat (same as Tentative Plan expiration)]
Section 25.
A new Subsection (16) is added to Section 9.8320 of the Eugene
Code, 1971, to provide as follows:
9.8320Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria- General
. The hearings
official shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a tentative PUD application
with findings and conclusions. Decisions approving an application, or approving
with conditions shall be based on compliance with the following criteria:
(16) For property with the /SR Site Review Overlay Zone, the PUD complies
Ordinance -
16
ORDINANCE A
with any additional site-specific criteria that were specified at the time
the /SR designation was applied to the property.
Section 26.
Section 9.8430 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as
follows:
9.8430Applicability
. Site review provisions shall be applied when any of the following
conditions exist:
(1)
Property is zoned with the /SR overlay zone and the proposal would result in
either of the following:
(a) New development of vacant sites (excluding partitions and any
development that consists only of new or expanded parking areas).
(b) An expansion of 20 percent or more of the total existing building square
footage on the development site.
(2)
The proposed use on the property is identified as a use which requires site
review under other provisions of this land use code and the proposal would
result in either of the following:
(a) New development of vacant sites (excluding development that consists
only of new or expanded parking areas).
(b) An expansion of 20 percent or more of the total existing building square
footage on the development site.
(3)
The application proposes needed housing, as defined by State statutes.
Applications proposing needed housing shall be reviewed through the Type II
site review procedures utilizing the criteria at EC 9.8445 Site Review Approval
Criteria - Needed Housing unless the applicant specifically request in the
application that the city apply the criteria at EC 9.8440 Site Review Approval
Criteria - General.
In lieu of site review, an application that falls within (1), (2), or (3) above, may
obtain approval through the Planned Unit Development process. No
development permit shall be issued by the city prior to approval of the site review
application, or the final planned unit development application.
Section 27.
Section 9.8555 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as
follows:
9.8555 Applicability of Subdivision, Final Plat Applications.
A subdivision final plat
application follows a Type [II] I process. Applications for final plat approval cannot
be submitted unless the subject property received tentative plan approval and any
approval conditions required prior to submittal of the final plat have been met.
Section 28.
The definition of “Noncommercial dog kennel” set forth in Section
4.330 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows:
Ordinance -
17
ORDINANCE A
4.330 Animal Control - Definitions
. For purposes of sections 4.330 to 4.500 of
this chapter, the following words and phrases mean:
Noncommercial dog kennel
. An establishment or premises where [three]
four or more dogs, over six months of age, are kept or maintained, whether
by owners of the dogs or by persons providing facilities and care, and
whether or not for compensation, not including the temporary keeping
of one additional dog for up to 6 months in any 12-month period. No
more than two of the dogs shall be used for breeding. The term does not
include any animal hospital. For purposes of this definition, if the
“premises” consists of a lot that contains a main dwelling and a
secondary dwelling unit, the “premises” means the lot.
Section 29.
A new Figure 9.2751(13)(b)1. Fences, as attached hereto is hereby
adopted; Figure 9.0500 Building Height Calculation is hereby amended and replaced
with the attached Figure 9.0500 Building Height Calculation; and Figure 9.5500(11)(b)
Multiple-Family Driveways, is hereby amended and replaced with the attached Figure
9.5500(11)(b) Multiple-Family Driveways; and they shall be incorporated with other
similar maps and figures in the Eugene Code, 1971.
Section 30.
The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the
City Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained
herein or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971 to the provisions added,
amended, or repealed herein.
Section 31.
The legislative findings attached as Exhibit A hereto are adopted in
support of this Ordinance.
Section 32.
Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in the
Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of
its passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, or upon the date of its
acknowledgment as provided by ORS 197.625, whichever date is later.
Ordinance -
18
ORDINANCE A
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
____ day of ______________, 2008 ____ day of ______________, 2008
_____________________________ _____________________________
City Recorder Mayor
00200768.DOC;1
Ordinance -
19
ö×ÎÙ×É
ö××È
øÅ×ÐÐÓÎÕ
öÍÊ ÙÍÊÎ×Ê ÐÍÈÉ
Ö×ÎÙ×É ÇÌ ÈÍ ª ÓÎ
Ô×ÓÕÔÈ ÛÐÐÍÅ×Ø
ÅÓÈÔÓÎ ÍÎ× ÖÊÍÎÈ
ÃÛÊØ É×ÈÚÛÙÑ ÉÍ
ÐÍÎÕ ÛÉ ÈÔ× Ö×ÎÙ×
ØÍ×É ÎÍÈ ×ÄÈ×ÎØ
ÌÛÉÈ Û ÐÓÎ×
ÙÊ×ÛÈ×Ø Úà ÛÎ
×ÄÈ×ÎÉÓÍÎ ÍÖ ÈÔ×
ÖÊÍÎÈ ÅÛÐÐ ÍÖ ÈÔ×
ØÅ×ÐÐÓÎÕ
ÓÎÙÔ Ö×ÎÙ×
Ì×ÊÏÓÈÈ×Ø
öÊÍÎÈ ãÛÊØ é×ÈÚÛÙÑ
ÅÓÈÔÓÎ ÖÊÍÎÈ
ÃÛÊØ É×ÈÚÛÙÑ
úÇÓÐØÓÎÕ ô×ÓÕÔÈ ùÛÐÙÇÐÛÈÓÍÎ
ôÓÕÔ×ÉÈ ìÍÓÎÈ ÍÖ êÍÍÖ
ùÛÉ×
ïÓØìÍÓÎÈ ÍÖ ÈÔ×
ôÓÕÔ×ÉÈ éÐÍÌ×
ö××È
ö××È
õÊÛØ×
ð×ÉÉ ÈÔÛÎ
ö××È
õÊÛØ× ê×Ö×Ê×ÎÙ× øÛÈÇÏ ðÓÎ×
ùÛÉ×
ôÓÕÔ×ÉÈ ìÍÓÎÈ ÍÖ êÍÍÖ
ïÓØìÍÓÎÈ ÍÖ ÈÔ×
ôÓÕÔ×ÉÈ éÐÍÌ×
ö××È
õÊÛØ×
õÊÛØ× ê×Ö×Ê×ÎÙ×
øÛÈÇÏ ðÓÎ×
ö××È
õÊÛØ×
EXHIBIT A
Findings
Code Amendment Eugene Code Section 9.8065 requires that the following approval criteria (in
bold and italics) be applied to a code amendment:
(1) The amendment is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals adopted by the Land
Conservation and Development Commission.
Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity
for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
The City has acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement which insure the opportunity for citizens
to be involved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements for such involvement. The
action taken did not amend the citizen involvement program. The process for adopting these
amendments complied with Goal 1 because it is consistent with the citizen involvement provisions.
Specifically, the Planning Commission held a series of public work sessions followed by separate public
hearings held by the Planning Commission and City Council. Based on this information, the process
followed is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 1.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a
basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual basis for
such decisions and actions.
The Eugene Land Use Code specifies the procedure and criteria that were used in considering these
amendments to the code. The record shows that there is an adequate factual base for the amendments.
The Goal 2 coordination requirement is met when the City engages in an exchange, or invites such an
exchange, between the City and any affected governmental unit and when the City uses the information
obtained in the exchange to balance the needs of the citizens. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination
requirement, the City engaged in an exchange about the subject of these amendments with all of the
affected governmental units. Specifically, the City provided notice of the proposed action and
opportunity to comment to Lane County, Springfield and the Department of Land Conservation and
Development.
There are no Goal 2 Exceptions required for these amendments. Therefore, the amendments are
consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands. To preserve agricultural lands.
The amendments are for property located within the urban growth boundary and do not affect any land
designated for agricultural use. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 3 does not apply.
Goal 4 - Forest Lands. To conserve forest lands.
The amendments are for property located within the urban growth boundary and do not affect any land
designated for forest use. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 4 does not apply.
Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources. To conserve open space
and protect natural and scenic resources.
OAR 660-023-0250(3) provides: Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in
consideration of a PAPA unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this
section, a PAPA would affect a Goal 5 resource only if:
(a)The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan or
land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to
address specific requirements of Goal 5;
(b)The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant
Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or
(c)The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted
demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in the
amended UGB area.
These amendments do not create or amend the citys list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a
=
code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific
requirements of Goal 5, do not allow new uses that could be conflicting uses with a significant
Goal 5 resource site and do not amend the acknowledged UGB. Therefore, Statewide Planning
Goal 5 does not apply.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and land Resource Quality. To maintain and improve the quality of the air,
water and land resources of the state.
Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air,
water and land from impacts from those discharges. The amendments to not affect the Citys
=
ability to provide for clean air, water or land resources. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 6
does not apply.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. To protect life and property from
natural disasters and hazards.
Goal 7 requires that local government planning programs include provisions to protect people and
property from natural hazards such as floods, land slides, earthquakes and related hazards,
tsunamis and wildfires. The Goal prohibits a development in natural hazard areas without
appropriate safeguards. The amendments do not effect the Citys restrictions on development in
=
areas subject to natural disasters and hazards. Further, the amendments do not allow for new
development that could result in a natural hazard. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 7 does not
apply.
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs. To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and
visitors, and where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities
including destination resorts.
Findings 2
Goal 8 ensures the provision of recreational facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily
concerned with the provision of those facilities in non-urban areas of the state. The plan
amendments do not effect the citys provisions for recreation areas, facilities or recreational
=
opportunities. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 8 does not apply.
Goal 9 - Economic Development. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a
variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregons citizens.
=
The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR 660, Division 9) requires cities to
evaluate the supply and demand of commercial land relative to community economic objectives.
The Eugene Commercial Land Study (October 1992) was adopted by the City of Eugene as a
refinement of the Metro Plan, and complies with the requirements of Goal 9 and its
Administrative Rule. The amendments do not impact the supply of industrial or commercial
lands. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9.
Goal 10 - Housing. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential land
for needed housing units. Although some of the amendments address residential development
standards, the land use code amendments do not impact the supply or availability of residential
lands included in the documented supply of “buildable land” that is available for residential
development as inventoried in the acknowledged 1999 Residential Lands Study. Therefore, the
amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 10.
Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development.
The amendments do not effect the Citys provision of public facilities and services. Therefore,
=
Statewide Planning Goal 11 does not apply.
Goal 12- Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
The Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) contains the following requirement:
(1) Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use
regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed
land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards
(e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility....
(2) A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it:
(a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility;
(b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system;
(c) Allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access
Findings 3
which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility;
or
(d) Would reduce the performance standards of the facility below the minimum
acceptable level identified in the TSP
Due to the minor nature of these amendments, the amendments do not affect the provision of safe,
convenient and economic transportation systems and do not significantly affect any transportation
facilities.
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation. To conserve energy.
The amendments do not impact energy conservation. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 13
does not apply.
Goal 14 - Urbanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban
land use.
The amendments do not affect the Citys provisions regarding the transition of land from rural to
=
urban uses. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 14 does not apply.
Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway. To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural,
scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the
Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.
The amendments to not contain any changes that affect the regulation of areas within the
Willamette River Greenway. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 15 does not apply.
Goal 16 through 19 - Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean
Resources.
There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related to the property
effected by these amendments. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the amendments will
not affect compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19.
(2) The amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and
applicable adopted refinement plans.
The code amendments include minor changes to the Land Use Code that address issues raised by
the community that are primarily related to residential development and lot configuration
standards, without raising significant policy issues. Given the minor nature of these amendments,
there are no relevant Metro Plan policies affected by this action. Furthermore, the amendments
do not address any adopted refinement plans. Therefore, no refinement plan is affected by this
action.
Findings 4
(3) The amendment is consistent with EC 9.3020 Criteria for Establishment of an S Special
Area Zone, in the case of establishment of a special area zone.
The amendments do not establish a special area zone. Therefore, this criterion does not apply to
these amendments.
Findings 5
ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE B
ORDINANCE NO. ___________
AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING LAND USE REGULATIONS;
AMENDING SECTION 9.2751 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND A SUNSET DATE.
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Subsection (3) of Section 9.2751 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is
amended to revise subsection (a) and to add a subsection (c) as follows:
9.2751 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2750.
(3)
Building Height.
(a) Except as provided below, [I] in the R-3 and R-4 zone, the maximum
building height shall be limited to 30 feet for that portion of the building
located within 50 feet from the abutting boundary of, or directly across
an alley from, land zoned R-1.
(c) For that area bound by Hilyard Street to the west, Agate Street to
thth
the east, East 18 Avenue to the north and East 20 Avenue to the
south:
1. In the R-3 zone, the maximum building height shall be limited
to 35 feet for that portion of the building located within 160
feet from the abutting boundary of, or directly across an alley
from, land zoned R-1.
2. In the R-4 zone, the maximum building height shall be limited
to 35 feet for that portion of the building located within 50 feet
from the abutting boundary of, or directly across an alley
from, land zoned R-1. It shall be limited to 50 feet for that
portion of the building located within 175 feet from land
zoned R-3, and shall be limited to 75 feet for that portion of
the building located within 176 feet and 225 feet of land zoned
R-3.
Section 2.
The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the
City Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained
ORDINANCE B
herein or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971 to the provisions added,
amended, or repealed herein.
Section 3.
The legislative findings attached as Exhibit A hereto are adopted in
support of this Ordinance.
Section 4.
Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in the
Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of
its passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, or upon the date of its
acknowledgment as provided by ORS 197.625, whichever date is later.
Section 5.
This Ordinance and the amendments authorized herein shall
automatically sunset and be repealed on February 11, 2010. The City Recorder is
requested to note the sunset date on appropriate City logs.
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
____ day of ______________, 2008 ____ day of ______________, 2008
_____________________________ _____________________________
City Recorder Mayor
00200775.DOC;2
Ordinance -
2
EXHIBIT A
Findings
Code Amendment Eugene Code Section 9.8065 requires that the following approval criteria (in
bold and italics) be applied to a code amendment:
(1) The amendment is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals adopted by the Land
Conservation and Development Commission.
Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity
for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
The City has acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement which insure the opportunity for citizens
to be involved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements for such involvement. The
action taken did not amend the citizen involvement program. The process for adopting these
amendments complied with Goal 1 because it is consistent with the citizen involvement provisions.
Specifically, the Planning Commission held a series of public work sessions followed by separate public
hearings held by the Planning Commission and City Council. Based on this information, the process
followed is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 1.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a
basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual basis for
such decisions and actions.
The Eugene Land Use Code specifies the procedure and criteria that were used in considering these
amendments to the code. The record shows that there is an adequate factual base for the amendments.
The Goal 2 coordination requirement is met when the City engages in an exchange, or invites such an
exchange, between the City and any affected governmental unit and when the City uses the information
obtained in the exchange to balance the needs of the citizens. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination
requirement, the City engaged in an exchange about the subject of these amendments with all of the
affected governmental units. Specifically, the City provided notice of the proposed action and
opportunity to comment to Lane County, Springfield and the Department of Land Conservation and
Development.
There are no Goal 2 Exceptions required for these amendments. Therefore, the amendments are
consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands. To preserve agricultural lands.
The amendments are for property located within the urban growth boundary and do not affect any land
designated for agricultural use. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 3 does not apply.
Goal 4 - Forest Lands. To conserve forest lands.
The amendments are for property located within the urban growth boundary and do not affect any land
designated for forest use. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 4 does not apply.
Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources. To conserve open space
and protect natural and scenic resources.
OAR 660-023-0250(3) provides: Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in
consideration of a PAPA unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this
section, a PAPA would affect a Goal 5 resource only if:
(a)The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan or
land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to
address specific requirements of Goal 5;
(b)The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant
Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or
(c)The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted
demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in the
amended UGB area.
These amendments do not create or amend the citys list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a
=
code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific
requirements of Goal 5, do not allow new uses that could be conflicting uses with a significant
Goal 5 resource site and do not amend the acknowledged UGB. Therefore, Statewide Planning
Goal 5 does not apply.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and land Resource Quality. To maintain and improve the quality of the air,
water and land resources of the state.
Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air,
water and land from impacts from those discharges. The amendments to not affect the Citys
=
ability to provide for clean air, water or land resources. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 6
does not apply.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. To protect life and property from
natural disasters and hazards.
Goal 7 requires that local government planning programs include provisions to protect people and
property from natural hazards such as floods, land slides, earthquakes and related hazards,
tsunamis and wildfires. The Goal prohibits a development in natural hazard areas without
appropriate safeguards. The amendments do not effect the Citys restrictions on development in
=
areas subject to natural disasters and hazards. Further, the amendments do not allow for new
development that could result in a natural hazard. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 7 does not
apply.
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs. To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and
visitors, and where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities
including destination resorts.
Findings 2
Goal 8 ensures the provision of recreational facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily
concerned with the provision of those facilities in non-urban areas of the state. The plan
amendments do not effect the citys provisions for recreation areas, facilities or recreational
=
opportunities. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 8 does not apply.
Goal 9 - Economic Development. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a
variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregons citizens.
=
The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR 660, Division 9) requires cities to
evaluate the supply and demand of commercial land relative to community economic objectives.
The Eugene Commercial Land Study (October 1992) was adopted by the City of Eugene as a
refinement of the Metro Plan, and complies with the requirements of Goal 9 and its
Administrative Rule. The amendments do not impact the supply of industrial or commercial
lands. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9.
Goal 10 - Housing. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential land
for needed housing units. Although some of the amendments address residential development
standards, the land use code amendments do not impact the supply or availability of residential
lands included in the documented supply of “buildable land” that is available for residential
development as inventoried in the acknowledged 1999 Residential Lands Study. Therefore, the
amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 10.
Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development.
The amendments do not effect the Citys provision of public facilities and services. Therefore,
=
Statewide Planning Goal 11 does not apply.
Goal 12- Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
The Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) contains the following requirement:
(1) Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use
regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed
land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards
(e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility....
(2) A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it:
(a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility;
(b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system;
(c) Allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access
Findings 3
which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility;
or
(d) Would reduce the performance standards of the facility below the minimum
acceptable level identified in the TSP
Due to the minor nature of these amendments, the amendments do not affect the provision of safe,
convenient and economic transportation systems and do not significantly affect any transportation
facilities.
In a May 27, 2008 letter to the City, the Department of Land Conservation and Development
(DLCD) has asserted that the City must show how the imposition of building height transitions in
the South University neighborhood (EC 9.2751(3)(c)) is “consistent with the region’s
development strategy required by OAR 660-012-0035(5).” The City interprets DLCD’s assertion
to mean that the City is required to show the amendment is consistent with the performance
measures in TransPlan that were adopted in 2002 pursuant to OAR 660-012-0035(5). DLCD
specifically refers to the performance measure that calls for 23.3% of new dwelling units in
Eugene and Springfield to be to be in areas designated for nodal development by 2015. While a
portion of the South University neighborhood is identified in TransPlan as being part of a
“Potential Nodal Development Area,” no portion of the South University neighborhood has
received the Nodal Development Area designation in the Metro Plan and no portion has been
rezoned to include the /ND Nodal Development overlay zone.
It is not clear that the area affected by the height amendment will be designated and zoned as
nodal areas for purposes of the 2015 performance measure. The height transition requirement
applies only to the R-3 Limited High Density Residential and R-4 High Density Residential zoned
land just south of the University of Oregon, within the area bound by Hilyard Street to the west,
Agate Street to the east, E. 18th Avenue to the north and E. 20th Avenue to the south. Further,
the building heights in the R-3 and R-4 zones would be restricted to 35 feet only for that portion
of a building located within 160 feet from the abutting boundary of, or directly across an alley
from, land zoned R-1, and building heights in the R-4 zone would be restricted to 50 feet only for
that portion of a building located within 175 feet of land zoned R-3, and to 75 feet for a portion
of a building greater than 175 feet and up to 225 feet from land zoned R-3. DLCD has not
identified a basis for concluding that the proposed height transitions will unlawfully interfere with
the region’s ability to meet its 23.3% performance standard and the City finds no such basis.
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,
Findings 4
scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the
Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.
The amendments to not contain any changes that affect the regulation of areas within the
Willamette River Greenway. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 15 does not apply.
Goal 16 through 19 - Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean
Resources.
There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related to the property
effected by these amendments. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the amendments will
not affect compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19.
(2) The amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and
applicable adopted refinement plans.
The code amendments include minor changes to the Land Use Code that address issues raised by
the community that are primarily related to residential development and lot configuration
standards, without raising significant policy issues. Given the minor nature of these amendments,
there are no relevant Metro Plan policies affected by this action. Furthermore, the amendments
do not address any adopted refinement plans. Therefore, no refinement plan is affected by this
action.
(3) The amendment is consistent with EC 9.3020 Criteria for Establishment of an S Special
Area Zone, in the case of establishment of a special area zone.
The amendments do not establish a special area zone. Therefore, this criterion does not apply to
these amendments.
Findings 5
ATTACHMENT C
Alternative B1:
Section 2.
Table 9.6410 in Section 9.6410 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by
adding additional requirements for Multi-Family developments, to provide as follows:
9.6410 Motor Vehicle Parking Standards.
Table 9.6410 Required Off-Street
Motor Vehicle Parking
UsesMinimum Number of Required Off-Street
Parking Spaces
Residential
Dwelling
[Multiple Family (3 or more dwellings on same lot) 1 per dwelling.
Multiple Family developments in the R-3 and R-1 space per studio or 1-bedroom unit
4 zones within the boundaries of the City 1.5 spaces/unit per 2-bedroom unit**
recognized West University Neighbors and 2 spaces/unit per 3-bedroom unit*
South University Neighborhood Associations.
*.5 spaces required for each additional
bedroom beyond 3 bedrooms
** Fractions of .50 are rounded up to the
next whole number.
Multiple Family – all other areas 1 per dwelling
******************************************************************
Alternative B2:
Section 2.
Table 9.6410 in Section 9.6410 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by
adding additional requirements for Multi-Family developments, to provide as follows:
9.6410 Motor Vehicle Parking Standards.
Table 9.6410 Required Off-Street
Motor Vehicle Parking
UsesMinimum Number of Required Off-Street
Parking Spaces
Residential
Dwelling
[Multiple Family (3 or more dwellings on same lot) 1 per dwelling.
Multiple Family developments in the R-3 and R-4 1 space/unit per 1-or-2-bedroom unit
zones within the boundaries of the City recognized 2 spaces/unit per 3-or-more-bedroom
West University Neighbors and South University unit
Neighborhood Associations.
Multiple Family – all other areas 1 per dwelling
ATTACHMENT D
Replacement Goal 12 Findings for Alternative B1 or B2
Goal 12- Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation
system.
The Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) contains the following requirement:
(1) Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use regulations
which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are
consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of service,
volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility....
(2) A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it:
(a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;
(b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system;
(c) Allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which
are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility; or
(d) Would reduce the performance standards of the facility below the minimum acceptable
level identified in the TSP
Due to the minor nature of these amendments, the amendments do not affect the provision of safe,
convenient and economic transportation systems and do not significantly affect any transportation
facilities.
In a May 27, 2008 letter to the City, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)
has asserted that the City must show how the imposition of building height transitions in the South
University neighborhood (EC 9.2751(3)(c)) is “consistent with the region’s development strategy
required by OAR 660-012-0035(5).” The City interprets DLCD’s assertion to mean that the City is
required to show the amendment is consistent with the performance measures in TransPlan that were
adopted in 2002 pursuant to OAR 660-012-0035(5). DLCD specifically refers to the performance
measure that calls for 23.3% of new dwelling units in Eugene and Springfield to be to be in areas
designated for nodal development by 2015. While a portion of the South University neighborhood is
identified in TransPlan as being part of a “Potential Nodal Development Area,” no portion of the South
University neighborhood has received the Nodal Development Area designation in the Metro Plan and
no portion has been rezoned to include the /ND Nodal Development overlay zone.
Similarly, DLCD raises a concern that the increase in parking requirements for new multi-family
developments in the West University and South University neighborhoods will encourage automobile
use in a nodal area. Like the South University neighborhood, a portion of the West University
neighborhood is identified in TransPlan as being part of a “Potential Nodal Development Area,” but no
portion of the neighborhood has received the Nodal Development Area designation in the Metro Plan
and no portion has been rezoned to include the /ND Nodal Development overlay zone.
It is not clear that any of the areas affected by the height and parking amendments will be designated
and zoned as nodal areas for purposes of the 2015 performance measure. The transition requirement
applies only to the R-3 Limited High Density Residential and R-4 High Density Residential zoned land
just south of the University, within the area bound by Hilyard Street to the west, Agate Street to the
east, E. 18th Avenue to the north and E. 20th Avenue to the south. Further, the building heights in the
R-3 and R-4 zones would be restricted to 35 feet only for that portion of a building located within 160
feet from the abutting boundary of, or directly across an alley from, land zoned R-1, and building
heights in the R-4 zone would be restricted to 50 feet only for that portion of a building located within
175 feet of land zoned R-3, and to 75 feet for a portion of a building greater than 175 feet and up to
225 feet from land zoned R-3. DLCD has not identified a basis for concluding that the proposed
height transitions will unlawfully interfere with the region’s ability to meet its 23.3% performance
standard and the City finds no such basis. Further, the City finds that the modest parking requirements
are necessary to address excessive demand for on-street parking resulting from the increase in multi-
family developments in the area and finds that the requirements do not conflict with any nodal policy,
standard or criterion.
ATTACHMENT E
Planning & Development
Planning
City of Eugene
th
99 West 10 Avenue
M
Eugene, Oregon 97401
EMORANDUM
(541) 682-5377
(541) 682-5572 FAX
www.eugene-or.gov
Date:
June 25, 2008
To:
Mayor Piercy and City Council
From:
Alissa Hansen, 682-5508
Senior Planner
Subject:
Minor Code Amendments (CA 07-5)
The following memo is provided in response to the questions asked by City Council at the June 4,
2008 work session and the June 16, 2008 public hearing on the Minor Code Amendments. City
Council action on these amendments is scheduled for July 14, 2008. Staff is providing this memo in
advance of the July 14, 2008 agenda packet to better facilitate action at that meeting.
1.What are the costs associated with extending public notice requirements for Type II and
IV applications from 300 feet to 500 feet?
Based on a review of recent land use applications from different neighborhoods across the city, the
average cost increase to the city per application would be approximately $150 if notice requirements
for Type II and IV land use applications were increased by 200 feet. Based on the number of Type II
and Type IV land use applications typically processed in one year, this would result in a total increase
of approximately $24,000 to $30,000.
The minor code amendment project does not include such an amendment at this time, nor did this issue
come up as part of the public scoping for this project. However, the issue of earlier notice to
neighborhoods was raised. That was addressed by including in the package of amendments a proposal
to provide for early neighbor and neighborhood input into the development process that requires an
applicant, at their cost, to host a meeting prior to submitting a land use application to the City. The
purpose of this meeting is to provide a means for the applicant and neighbors to meet to review a
development proposal and to share information and concerns regarding the project. In this case, the
applicant would be required to send notice of the meeting to surrounding property owners and
occupants, and that notice range is based on existing code requirements for the corresponding
application types. Written testimony has been received on this amendment topic requesting that the
required notice range for the neighborhood/applicant meetings be increased.
1
2.Can language be provided for making building height limits on flag lots compatible with
neighborhoods?
The topic of compatibility, including building height on all lots, is currently under consideration
through the Infill Compatibility Standards project and will be addressed comprehensively through that
process. There are two minor amendments related to building height under consideration as part of
this minor code amendment project as well. The first clarifies how to measure building heights in
residential zones and the second was proposed by City Council as a means to address concerns of
allowable building heights in R-3 Limited High Density and R-4 High Density Residential zones that
are proximal to R-1 Low Density Residential zones, and to reflect a height transition with the R-1 Low
Density Residential zoned areas. An amendment related to flag lot height limitations was not
prioritized by the community or the Planning Commission for inclusion in this project, and is
considered beyond the scope of the project due to the need for a more comprehensive review of
individual neighborhoods and building heights.
3.Which Growth Management Study policies are incorporated into the Eugene Code,
where and how?
Currently, the individual policies from the Growth Management Study (GMS) are not incorporated
into the Eugene Code; however, the GMS is referenced in the general purpose section. The general
purpose section of the Eugene Code states, in part, that “The land use code is intended to effectively
and efficiently implement the Metro Plan, Growth Management Study and applicable state and federal
laws.” The GMS polices were adopted prior to the land use code update process, and were used to
guide the amendments considered by and ultimately adopted by City Council in 2001. The land use
code is one of several tools through which these policies are implemented.
Proposed amendment #18 would incorporate the individual GMS policies into the purpose section of
Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code (EC) to serve as policy direction, as directed by City Council at a
November 2007 work session. In addition, as part of the Planning Division’s forthcoming work
program update, staff will be providing further detail on a broader discussion of the GMS polices and
what steps are being taken to include the GMS policies more formally in the code. As noted in the
adopting resolution, the policies shall not be used in determining whether the City shall approve or
deny individual land use applications. Instead, the resolution states that the policies will be
implemented through the council's actions in amending the Eugene Code, and in actions other than
code changes such as adopting the City budget and capital improvement program. A copy of the
resolution adopting the GMS policies is attached for reference.
4.How would staff interpret definition of residential character? How would you use it,
what does it mean?
The proposed definition of residential character was created through a collaborative effort involving
the Planning Commission, a neighborhood leader and staff. This new definition would only be
invoked during a Type II land use application process where the applicable approval criteria require
consistency with codified adopted plan policies (site review, subdivision or partition), and where these
policies contain the term “residential character.” The definition would only be applicable within a
particular sub-area of five refinement plans.
From a staff perspective, the definition gives broad meaning to the term and would provide guidance
when applying a specific policy to a site specific land use application. The definition can not override
2
the policies and the context of the policies as they were written in the refinement plan, which can
account for the unique nature of individual neighborhoods. However, the definition can provide
direction in interpreting the meaning and application of such policies.
5.Provide language for the neighborhood/applicant meeting amendment that requires
that the application submitted to the city substantially resembles the project presented
at the meeting.
The City Attorney’s office is preparing amendment language to require that the application submitted
to the City be in substantial conformance with the project presented to the neighbors at the
neighborhood/applicant meeting. That amendment language will be a part of the amended ordinance
coming forward for action.
6.Regarding the proposed residential density calculations, is there a way to make those
applicable to infill and not new development?
The amendment regarding residential density calculations was suggested by the community as a means
of addressing neighborhood concerns about increased density in infill situations. For many of the close
in established neighborhoods, the vast majority of lots or development sites are less than 13,500 square
feet in area. For these lots, which is where much of the infill occurs, this amendment would require
maximum density to be rounded up to the next whole number for fractions of .75 or above and rounded
down for fractions below .75, as opposed to the current round up provision that applies to all lots,
regardless of size. While the amendment would retain the round up provision for lots or development
sites 13,500 square feet or greater in area, lots of this size are typically “greenfield” or vacant
undeveloped sites. As a result, there is more flexibility in distributing density in manner that does not
negatively impact an established neighborhood. Using density and lot size as a basis is a more
consistent tool than land divisions, as density is applied at the time of building permit for any new
dwelling. The proposed amendment has strong neighborhood support and staff believes that the
proposed language addresses neighborhoods concerns.
7.How many of the proposed minor code amendments were suggested by city residents v.
non residents
?
The vast majority of those involved in the minor code amendment project are city residents. Two of the
18 proposed amendments (#8 and #12) were suggested by residents who live within the urban growth
boundary, but outside of the City limits. Both amendments received broad support from
neighborhoods comprised of city residents, and were selected as priorities by community members and
the Planning Commission for inclusion in this project. The remaining 16 amendments were suggested
by city residents and the City Council.
8.Clarify the impact of changing amendment #1 related to the number of allowable dogs
within the city residence.
This amendment would change the definition of “kennel” and the definition of “noncommercial dog
kennel” to keeping four or more dogs on the premises, thereby allowing up to three dogs on residential
and commercial properties. At their public hearing, the Planning Commission heard testimony from
several individuals who suggested that the proposal be revised to allow for the keeping of foster dogs
or other dogs on a temporary basis, such as following the death of family member or friend, especially
given the current uncertainty around funding of the Lane County Animal Regulation Authority. Based
3
on this testimony, the Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 to modify the amendments to provide an
allowance for the temporary keeping of one additional dog for up to six months in any 12-month
period. This would allow a dog owner within the city limits to keep three dogs permanently, plus keep
one additional dog on a temporary basis for up to six months.
9.Provide the original amendment on parking proposed by the West University
neighborhood. Clarify the Infill Compatibility Standards Task Team’s position on this
amendment.
West University Proposal: The West University Neighbors’ original proposal on multi-family parking
requirements included two components. The first linked the parking requirements to areas adjacent to
the City’s Residential Parking Program zone, and the second based the minimum number of required
parking spaces on number of bedrooms in each dwelling unit.
As originally proposed by West University, for dwelling units with two bedrooms or less per unit, the
minimum number of required off-street parking spaces is one per dwelling unit, and for dwelling units
with three or more bedrooms per unit, the minimum number of required off-street parking spaces is
two per dwelling unit.
The amendment was broadened in scope by City Council to address concerns of excessive demand for
on-street parking by multi-family development in R-3 and R-4 zones with a substantial number of
dwelling units that have three or more bedrooms
Infill Compatibility Standards Task Team: The Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) Task Team
submitted a report to the Planning Commission providing recommendations on a number of the
proposed amendments. For the amendment on multi-family parking requirements, the ICS Task Team
judged that the West University’s suggestion “better addressed the specific problem in Residential
Parking Program (RPP) zones [as compared to the project team’s recommendation] without
introducing a potentially contentious city-wide change.” The ICS Task Team’s report was based on
the original project team recommendation on the topic of multi-family parking, which was prepared
prior to City Council’s action to broaden the amendment topic.
In the revised recommendation on this topic, prepared in response to City Council’s action to broaden
the scope of the amendment, the project team recommended the Planning Commission not create a link
between the multi-family parking requirements and the Residential Parking Program (RPP), as the RPP
program is not a part of Chapter 9 and is administered and enforced by the City’s Parking Services
program, with permits issued by Diamond Parking Services. Given this disconnect from the land use
code, the project team believed it would be difficult to administer and enforce. Furthermore, not all
properties within the concerned areas are within RPP zones. The project team suggested an alternative
that based minimum number of required parking spaces on the number of bedrooms, and provided
options for applying it in all R-3 and R-4 zones or for specific areas within the city. The Planning
Commission decided to pursue a modified option that would require a minimum of one parking space
for the first bedroom and an additional .5 parking spaces per each additional bedroom, and made the
amendment specific to multi-family developments in the West University and South University
neighborhoods. The ICS Task Team did not provide comments on this modified option.
Please contact me at 682-5508 or via e-mail (alissa.h.hansen@ci.eugene.or.us) if you have questions or
need additional information.
4
ATTACHMENTS
City Resolution No.4554: A Resolution Adopting Growth Management Policies
5
ATTACHMENT F
Motions Proposed by City Councilors for Ordinance A
Request Motion
(MiCAP Topic #1: Allowance I move to retain the current limitation on the number of dogs permitted without
for Dogs in Residential & constituting a “kennel” by:
Commercial zones)
1) Deleting the proposed replacement of the number 3 in the definition of “kennel”
Retain current limit on in Section 2 of Ordinance A so that the definition retains the following phrase:
number of dogs, with “premises on which 3 or more dogs over 6 months of age are kept or maintained. . . ”
allowance for one additional
foster dog on temporary 2) Amending the new text proposed for EC 9.2741(2)(a)5 in section 8 of Ordinance
basis. A to replace the “3” with a “2.”
3) Deleting the proposed replacement of the number 3 in the definition of
Proposed by Councilor Poling “noncommercial dog kennel” in Section 28 of Ordinance A so that the definition
retains the following phrase: “premises where three or more dogs, over six months of
age, are kept or maintained. . . ”
Request Motion
(MiCAP Topic #8: I move to delete Section 17 from Ordinance A.
Stormwater Destination)
I move to direct the City Manager to send the issue addressed by the proposed
Send the inclusion of the Section 17 back to the Planning Commission for further review.
stormwater manual language
back to Planning Commission
for further review.
Proposed by Councilor Clark
Request Motion
(MiCAP Topic #3: I move to replace the text of the proposed Subsection 9.2751(1)(c) of Ordinance A
Residential Density with the following text:
Calculations)
“(c) For purposes of calculating net density[,]:
Further limit the 1. The acreage of land considered part of the residential use shall
circumstances in which the exclude public [property, including] and private streets and alleys,
city “rounds up” when public parks and other public facilities.
calculating maximum density 2. In calculating the minimum net density required for a specific lot or
in residential zones so that the development site, the planning director shall round down to the
“rounding up” does not occur previous whole number.
when the development site is 3. In calculating the maximum net density allowed for a specific
adjacent to an R-1 property. lot or development site the planning director shall round up to
the next whole number only for:
Proposed by Councilor Zelenka a. A lot or development site that is 13,500 square feet or
more in area;
b. A lot or development site that is not abutting the
boundary of, or directly across an alley from land zoned
R-1; and
c. Fractions of .75 or above.
In all other circumstances the planning director shall round
down to the previous whole number.
4. At the request of the developer, the acreage described in 1., above,
also may exclude natural or historic resources. For purposes of this
section, natural resources include those designated for protection in
an adopted plan and the area within natural resources protection or
conservation setbacks that have been applied to the development
site. For purposes of this section, historic resources include historic
property and resources identified in an official local inventory as
“primary” or “secondary.” It may also include additional natural or
historic resources upon approval of the planning director.”
Request Motion
(MiCAP Topic #14: Provide I move to amend EC 9.7007(1)(a) at Section 19 of Ordinance A to provide:
for Early Neighbor and
Neighborhood Input into “Type II: 3-lot partitions, tentative subdivisions and tentative cluster subdivisions;”
Development Process)
Change the developments for
which notice and a
neighborhood meeting are
required from those that
would result in ‘over 10 lots’
to those that would result in
‘3 or more lots.’
Proposed by Councilor Zelenka
Request Motion
(MiCAP Topic #16: I move to direct the City Manager to refer to the Infill Compatibility Standards
Eliminate Site Review project or to the Planning Commission the issues of whether the 18 month expiration
Requirements for Projects period for PUDs is too long and whether the city is authorizing too many time
with Approved Planned Unit extensions of that expiration period.
Development)
Request additional review of
whether there is too much
time passage between
approval of a PUD and its
development.
Proposed by Councilor Zelenka
Motions Proposed by City Councilors for Ordinance B
Request Motion
(MiCAP Topic #7: Required I move to add a new section to Ordinance B that includes the text provided as
Parking for Multi-family Alternative B1 in Attachment C to the AIS and to replace the Goal 12 findings for
Developments in West Ordinance B with those provided as Attachment D to the AIS.
University Neighborhood
Associations)
Add parking requirements to
to address new
Ordinance B
trend of 5 or 6 bedroom
units in student housing
developments.
Proposed by Councilor Zelenka
Request Motion
(MiCAP Topic #5: Building I move to delete the text in Section 4 of Ordinance B and replace it with the
Height Transitions within following: “An immediate effective date of this Ordinance is necessary in order to
South University serve the important public purpose of ensuring that infill development in the affected
Neighborhood Association) area is compatible with the surroundings.”
(MiCAP Topic #7, if previous
motion passes)
Add immediate effective
date to ensure that all new
multi-family development
proposals in the described
area must comply with the
Ordinance B standards.
Proposed by Councilor Zelenka
00203230.DOC;2