HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 20270
ORDINANCE NO. 20270
AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING SECONDARY DWELL~[NGS
AND FLAG LOTS; AMENDING SECTIONS 9.2741~ 9.2750,
AND 9.2775 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
17HE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Subsection (2) of Section 9.2741 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to
provide:
9.2741 ~_13ecial 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 urlless occupying the
fi.~ll story of a multi-story structure with ground floor residential use.
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 4500 square feet. Flag
lots shall contain at least 13,500 square feet to permit a secondary
dwelling.
(b) In addition to the standards in subsection (a) of this section, detached
secondary dwellings shall comply with the following:
1, Except for flag lots, the lot shall be at least 6,000 square feet. Flag
lots shall contain at least 13,500 square feet.
2 If located within 20 feet of a property line, the maximum building
height shall not exceed 15 feet.
3 Provide a pedestrian walkway from the street or alley to the primary
entrance of the secondary dwelling.
4. The primary entrance to a secondary dwelling shall be defined by a
roofed porch.
5. Outdoor storage and garbage areas shall be screened from view
a4iacent properties and those across the street or alley.
Prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit for the secondary dwelling (or the
primary dwelling if it is constructed later), the owner shall provide the city with
a copy of a notice that has been recorded with the Lane County Clerk that
documents the requirement that the secondary dwelling or primary dwelling is,
and will remain, owner/occupied.
Ordinance- 1
Section 2~ The "Mip, imum Building Setbacks" category of Table 9.2750 of the Eugene Code,
1971, is amended to provide:
9.275~} Residentigl Zone Development Standards. In addition to applicable provisions
contained elsewhere in this code, the development standards listed in this section and
in EC 9.2751 to EC 9.2777 shall apply to all development in residential zones. In
cases of conflicts, standards specifically applicable in the residential zone shall apply.
The following Table 9.2750 sets forth the residential zone development standards,
subject to the special development standards in EC 9.2751.
Table 9.2750 Residential Zone
(See EC 9.2751 Special Development Standards for Table
R-1 R-1.5 R-2
Minimum Building
Setbacks (2),(4),(6),(8),(9),(I 0)
Front Yard Setback (excluding 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet I0 feet 10 feet
garages and carports)
Doors and C~orts (11)
interior Yard Setback (excluding 5 f~et or 5 feet or 5 feet or 5 feet or
education, government and religious minimum -- minimm minimum minimmn
uses and buildings located on Flag of 10 feet of 10 feet of l 0 feet of 10 feet
Lots ia R-1 created after [insea between between between between
effective date of amendment])(7) buildNgs ................... building~ p_~build?ngs bullrings
Interior Yard Setback for 15 feet -- 15 feet l 5 feet 15 feet
Education~ Government and
Religious Uses
Interior Y~Setbaek tbr 1 ~feet --~-' ............ __
Buildings Located on Flag Lots ~n
R~I Created After [insert
effective date of amendment] (See
Section 3. Subsections (4) and (5)(b) of Section 9.2775 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are
arrFnded to provide:
9,2775 Residential Flag Lot Standards for R-1.
(4) Use Regulations. Residential flag lots have the same land use regulations as
the base zone except, for residential flag lots of less than 13,500 square feet,
there is no allowance for home occupations or a secondary dwelling.
Ordinance - 2
(5) Development Standards.
(b)
Setbacks. For any new building, residential flag lots shall have a
minimum 10 foot building setback along all lot lines. The special flag lot
setback standard does not apply to flag lots that received final plat
approval by [insert effective date of amendmentl.
Section 4. The Legislative Findings set forth in the attached Exhibit A serve as support
for this Ordinance, but are not adopted.
Section 5. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concttrrence of the City
Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained herein or in
other provisions of the Eugene Code, 197t, to the provisions added, amended or repealed herein.
Section 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of'this
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof.
Section 7. Notwihhstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in the Eugene
Charter of 1976, 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 is later.
Passed by the City Council this
25® day' of November, 2002
city
Approved by the Mayor this
25th day of November~ 2002
Ordinance - 3
Exhibit A
Findings of Consistency of the Fall 2002 Land Use Code Amendments
with Criteria for Approval of Amendments to the Eugene Code
The Fall 2002 Land Use Code amendments address many code sections and a wide variety of
regulations. Findings of consistency for three ordinances are provided below. The first ordinance,
concerning land use regulations, contains code amendments that primarily address errors, clarify
existing code provisions or streamline procedures. The second ordinance, concerning nodal
develop.merit, contains changes.to the ,rND Nodal Development overlay zone. The third ordinance,
concerning secondary dwellings and flag tots, addresses changes to standards for residential flag lots
and secondary dwellings~
The Eugene Cky Council will apply the fbllowing criteria from EC 9.8065 to the proposed code
amendment:
(1) Is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals adopted by the Land
Conservation and Development Commission
~Oal l_r Cittzen fnvolvem,e, nL To develop a citizen involvementprogram that insures the opportunity
citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
The C(~y has acknaowledged provisions for citizen involvement which insure the opportunity fbr
citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements for such
involvement. The ordinance concerning land use regulations includes a revision to the requirement
that the City install a 12 square foot freestanding sign on development sites that have certain types
ofland use decisions pendk~g. The size requirement has been reduced to 6 square feet. Tiffs change
willsfill pro¼de broad pubhc notice of pending landuse decisions, yet the smaller size willbe more
for installation on the propertb,. Th/s change maintains consistency with Goal 1
requkements.
The ordLnance concerv2ng land use regulations also includes revisions that clarify the public hearings
that allow for the acceptance of new evidence. These changes maintain consistency wSth Goal 1 and
comply wRh State law.
The ordinance concerning land use regulations streamlines the land use process by removing the
requirement of site review if the city has approved the proposed development through aplarmed unit
de (PUD) or conditional use permit (CLX) process~ The PUD and CUP process provide
greater public notice and a public heahng on a pending development proposal This change will
remove an unnecessary administrative review (site review) of the same proposed development~ but
will not decrease the overall level of citizen involvement.
The process for adopting these amendments complied with Goal I since it complied with, and
Exbgbit A - t
s~assed the requirements of, the citizen involvement provisions~ Specifically, onAugust 30``2002,
the City provide~ written mailed notice of the October 1, 2002, joint Eugene and ~_ane County
Plannifig commission public heating on the Fall 2002 Dr~ft La'c1 Use C~e Amendments. The
notice included information on the basis for the draft amendments and applic£t)le approval criteria.
The notice was provided to the Lane County and City of Springfield ?lanning Directors and to all
neigthborhood groups officially recognized by the city council In add/t/on., the notice was provided
to the following orgarfizations involved in local land use regulations: 1) PRC~ES (Professionals ~br
Responsible Urban Development in Eugene-Springfield; 2) Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce;
3) Home Builders Association of Lane County; 4) Friends of Eugene; and 5) 1000 Friends of
Oregon. Any party that had request notice of the draft code amendments or that provided pubhc
testimony was also added to an "interested party" hst and provided written mailed notice of the
public heafing~ Legal notice in the local newspaper was also provided in accordance with Lane
County code amendment requirements~
On October 1~ 2002, Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions held a joint public heating on
the draft amendments. The Eugene Planning Commission held work sessions on October 7 and
October 8 and forwarded reconynnendations to the Eugene City Council On October 17, 2002~
written mailed notice was provided regarding the Eugene City Council public headngofOctober28,
2002. The notice was mailed to all interested parties. The pubhc heating notice and a copy of all
three ordinances were provided on the City, website.
Oal . To establish a land use ptanning process and policy framework as
basis for at) decisions and actions related to use q£1and and t-o assure an a~tequatb factual basis
for such decisions and actions.
The record shows that there is an adequate factual base for the amendments. To comply with the
Goal 2 coordination reqmrement, the City coordinated the adoption of the amendments with all
affected governmental ~ts. Specifically, the City pro¼ded written mailed notice of the proposed
amendments to the City of sP~Sngfield ~d Lan~ ~ounty. The City of Springfield pr0~,id;d no
comments on the pending amendments. ~e County Planning commission held a ioint public
hearing Mth the Eugene Planning Commission and will forward recommendations to the Lane
Comnty Board of Commissioners for application in the urban transition area. In addition, EWEB and
School District 4J were provided ~tten notice due to the nature of some of the proposed
amendrnents~ There are no Goal 2 Exceptions required for these amendments~
~.al 3: Agricultural Land& To Preserve Agricultural Lands.
The amendments do not affect any land designated for agricultural use. Therefbre, Goal 3 is not
applicable or relevant to the amendments.
~[ 4 ~ FQrest~~d& To conserve forest lands.
The amendments do not affect any land designated for forest use. Therefore, Goal 4 is not applicable
ExbAbit A - 2
or relevant to the amendments.
nic and Historic Areas_& and Natural Resources. To conserve open 3'pace
and protect natural and s~enic resou~cesl
These amendments do not create or amend the city's list of Goal S raxanroe*~ clc~ nat ~mm~d ~ oacla
provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or ro 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, Goal 5 does not apply.
r and [and Resource Quality~. To maintain and improve the quality cs£the air,
water and land resources of the~tate. '
he amendments do not affect the C~ty s compliance with Goal
_Goal_7 - Areas to Natural Disastet7~ and h'azards. To Protect life and properCv from natural
disasters and hazards.
The amendments do not affect the City's restrictions on development in areas subject to natural
disasters and hazards, TherefOre, Goat 7 does not apply.
Goal 8 - Recreational. Needs. To sati3f3; the recreational needs o~j ~ the citizens of the state and
visit-----ors, and where'aPProp ate, to provide d~r the siting of necessa~T redreational facilities
including destination resorts.
The plan amendments do not affect the City's provisions for recreation areas, facilities or
recreational opportunities. Therefore, Goal 8 does not apply.
~oal 9 men_L To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a
variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperiO: of Oregon ~ citizen'.
The ordinance concerning land use regulations amend_m~nts i,n, clude revismns that increa~se the
alloWable uses in the C-4 zone by pe~itted uses in the trade category. This provides greater
flex~bil~¢~ for proposed projects in that zone. The revisions also add ~ add~tior~l use to t~e I-2
zone. While tl~e ordinance concerning nodal development contains a size limitation of 50,000 square
feet for new retail uses ~n the nodal development overlay zone, that lirnkation will not render an),
commercial or industrial sites unbuildable. The ?ND overlay zone has nor been appt]ed to an3'
properties. The amendments do not diminish the supply of commercial or industrial lands.
~h~refore, they are Consistent with Goal 9.
_Goa~] O - Housing. 7b provide for the housing needs of citizens of the sra~e.
The ordinance concerning land use regulations includes a change that makes it possible to establish
Exhibit A - 3
a one-family dwelling in C-1 or C-2 if it is above a nonresidential use on the ground floor.
Ordinance No. 1 also mends the code to Cla~fy that greater residential lot density- is ailowed when
the cluster subdivision process is used.
The ordinance concerning nodal development includes a change to clarify the City's intent that
residential development in the nodal deV;lopment areas achiev~ an averag~ density ~f 12 units pe~
net residential acre. It also sets the minimmn density requirement for nodal development areas
within the R-1 and R-1.5 zones at 8 units per net residential acre. The amendments in this ordinance
related to minimum residential densities for different base zones exceed those set forth in the Land
Use Code, consistent with the intent to achieve an average of 12 units per net residential acre.
The ordinance conce~ng secondary dwellings and flag lots amends the code to permit secondary
dwellings on flag lots and to provide specific lot dimensions necessary for locating secondary
dwellin~s. It revi~es provisions ~'or the R-~ zone to allow home occupations and secondary dwellings
on flag 1;ts of 13, 5(J0 square feet or more. It reAuces the setback ~or residential flag a~d alley l(~ts
to make them easier t° develop. None of these provisions would render residential lands
unbuildable. Ln fact, they increase the potential for residential development in the City. The
anendments have no impact on the supply of residential lands and are therefore consistent with Goal
10.
Goal J j- Public Facilities ...... and Set-vices To ~_Man and develo~p a timely,, orderly and ~cient
arrangement ef public ~/~cilities and Sero, ices W se~e as a framework ~r urban and rural
development. ' _
The ~en~ents do not concern ~e Ci~'s provismn of public facilities and se~ices. Therefore,
Goal 1 t does not apply.
J- ~ran tio~. To provide and encourage a safe, convenientand economic trana~ortation
sYStem.
~e men~ents do not s~fic~tly ~fect a ~spo2afion facility. ~erefore, Goal 12 does not
apply.
Goal ]~-._.~n nse~atio~. To conserve ener~
The mendments do not concern ener~ conse~afion. Therefore, Goal 13 does not apply.
~114~- Ur._baniz~tion. To provide for an Orderly, and e~ficient transition~om ~rat to urban land
he amendments do not affect the C~ty s provisions regar&ng the transition of land from rural to
urbart
uses. Therefore, Goal 14 does ~ot ~pply.
Exhibit A - 4
~Gree_~wa2~. To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the naturai
scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of[ands along the Fb~[[amette
River as the Willamette RiVer Greenway.
The amendments to not contain any changes th_at affect the regulation of areas within the Willaznette
R~ver Greenway. The ordinance concerning land use regulations adds a cross reference that was
mistakenly leg ~>ut of the code, reiterating il an additional section that the City processes requests
for modification of a Willamette GreenW~y permit using a Type H process.
~oa... !s ] 6~..-_ ] 9... Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shoretand& Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean resources.
TheSe Statewide Planning Goals do not apply to the actions taken.
(2) Is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted
refinement plans.
Metro Plan Policies
using_Elemen_.?~ ?o~Ad 3. ~ncrease overall residentiaI densi~y in the
metropolitan area by creating more OpPortunities/or effectively designed in~ll, redevelopment, and
mixed use while considering impacts of increased residential densi~ on historic, exsting and fizture
neighborh°ods.
The ordinance concerning land use regulations includes a change to make ~t possible to establish a
one-family dwelling ~n ~t or C-2 if i~ is above a nonresidenti}l use on the ground floor. This is
consistent with the intent of Policy A. 13 since it promotes the mixing ofcomrr~ercial and residential
tlses.
The ord/nance concerrfing nodal developrnent includes in the purpose of the /I'4I) Nodal
DevelOpment overlay zone a statement that each node is hatende~ to achieve an average overall
residential density of 12 milts per net residential acre. The amendments h~ t~s ordinance relate~ to
mkfimum residential dens~fies for different base Zones exceed those set forth in the Lm~d Use Code,
consistent W~th the k~tent to achieve an average of 12 m~ts per net residential acre. This is
consistent wSth Policy A. 13 to increase overall residential densities.
~e ordinance concerning secondary dwellings and flag lots will create additional opportunities fbr
residential in-fill development by decreasing required setbacks for flag lots and increasing the
allowante of detached se;ondary &ell~gs. ~; pr;mote compatibility wii~ existing neighborh;ods,
new bu/ld~ngs on flag lots w/Ii still ha4; greaier setbacks ~an a standard lot a~ special design
standards remain in place for detached secondary dwellings.
emenL Poli . Provide for limited mixing of office, commercial, and industrial uses
under pr°cedures which clearly define 'the conditions un~e'r ~hich such uses shall be permitted and
Extfibit A ~ 5
which: (a) preserve the suitabiliO, of the affected areas .for their primao~ uses; (b) assure
com_patibili~: and (c; consider the ~ot~ential f~r increaSed tr~affic congestion. ~
Ordinance No. 1 amendments include a change to make it possible to establish a one-fawnily dwelling
or twO-fimlilY dwelling in C- 1 or C-2 if it is above a nonresidential use on the ground fk~or. Thes~
residences ~e also sul~iect to the limitations in EC 9.2161 (6). These limitation} on residential uses
prese~e the suitability of the C-1 and C-2 zones for co~ercial uses and take into account
;ompatibility and traf~c issues.
lend
allowable uses in the C-4 zone by
book store and drag store,
Transportation Element, Policy F. l. Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each
jurisdiction that have ident~fiedpote~tial for this type of t/ansportatio~-efficient land use p~attern,
City's intent that
ibr different base zones exceed those set forth in the Land Use
an average of 12 units per net residential acre. This
promote transit use and is consistent with the
ment Elem . Improve and maintain [ocat mechanismx that provide the
°PPort~,nity fo~'-~eSidents a~d prOPerty o~}~ers in exiSti.g residential areas to Partic}pate in the
iOlemen/a~ion Ooliciex in tie M~ that may Oct the character 2f those areas.
The ordi~ce con~mng l~d use re~lations Ncludes a revision to the requkement that the City
Nstall a 12 squ~e foot ~;eSt~ng S~ on developmem sites that have cern t~es ofl~d use
decisiOns pen~ing. The size requi;em;~t h~s been Muced to 6 squ~e feet. TNs c~ge will still
Provide b~oad public notice ofP~nding l~d Use decisiorm, yet the s~aller size WSll be m;}e emcient
?or installati°n on the prope~ md is Consistent wkh Poli~.y 3.
Refinement Plan Policies
The ~en~ents do not ad.ess a specific ~ea of the city or a specific public facility. Therefore,
no refinement PI~ is pa~icul~ly a~plicable.
Exhibit A - 6