Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 20238 ORDINANCE NO. 2{)238 AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE LAND USE CODE; AMENDING SECTIONS 9.2175, 9.2750, AND 9.2775 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; ADOPTING A SEVERABILIT¥ CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1~ Subsection (2) of Section 9.2175 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.2175 C~mmercial zone Development Standards - Lar_~_e Multi-Tenant Commercial (2) APPlication of Standards. In addition to the standards in EC 9.2170 Commercial Zone Development Standards - General_, and the standards in EC 9.2173 Commercial Zone Development Standards - Larg.~ Commercial ~acilkie~ the standards in this section apply to all development projects proposing at least 50,000 square feet of floor area Mthin 3 or more new buildings on a development site, and the portion of the development site specifically affected by the new- buildings. Section ~ Section 9.2750 of the Eugene Code, 1971 is amended by adding "(See EC .2775(5)(b)) to the entry for "Main and Accessory Buildings on Flag/Alley Lots when located within 20 feet of any' interior property line" under the Maximum Building Height category, and to the '¢Intefior Yard Setback for Education, Government and Religious Uses and Flag/Alley Lots" entry under the Minimum Building Setbacks category in Table 9.2750, to provide: Ordinance Table 9.275t) Residential Zone Development Standards (See EC 9.2751 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2750.) R4 R-1.5 R-2 R-3 Maximu~'~:~'i~Ji~g Eleight (2), (3), (4)~ (~) Main and Accessory Buildings on Flag/Alley Lots when located within 20 feet of any interior property line (See EC 9.2775(5)(b)) Minimt~m Building Setbacks (2___. . _.. ),(4),(6),_ ............. ~(7),(8)~(9),(10) Interior Yard Setback fbr Education, Government and Religious Uses and Flag/Alley Lots ~..e EC 9.2775(5)(~)~[ R~4 15 ~et - 15 f~et 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Section 3. provide: 9.2775 Subsection (5)(b) of Section 9.2775 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to Residential Flag Lot St_andards for R-1. (5) Development Standards. (b) Setbacks and Heig~ht. Residential flag lots have a minimum 15 building setback along all lot lines. The maximum height limit is 15 feet when any portion of the building is within 20 feet of the interior property line, These setbacks and height standards do not apply to flag lots that received tentative plan approval by August 1,2001. Section 4~ Although not part of this Ordinance, the City Comqcil adopts the Legislative Findings set forth in the attached Exhibit A in support of this action. Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is fYr 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 6. 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 Ordinance - 2 of the Eugene Code, 197 l, to the provisions added, amended or repealed herein~ Section 7~ It is necessary' for the preservation of the public health, welfare and safety for this Ordinance to have immediate effect. There~bre, this Ordinance shall become effective ~mmediately upon its passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, retention by the Mayor fbr more than 'ten days~ or readoption over a Mayoral veto by two-thirds of all members of the City Council. Passed by the City Council this 10t~ day of December, 2001 City Recorder Approved by the Mayor this }day of December~ 2001 Ordinance - 3 Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 20238 FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE ADOPTION OF MINOR LAND USE CODE A~IENDMENTS INTRODUCTION In the Eugene~Springfield metropolitan area, comprehensive planning begins at the regional level. The Eugene~Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the acknowledged comprehensive plan for the cities of Eugene and Springfield and unincorporated areas of Lane Counkv within the Metro Plan boundary. Originally acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission in 1982, the Metro Plan is currently undergoing its second periodic review~ The Metro Plan is a frmnework plan and is supplemented by rnore detailed plans, which are adopted as refinements of the Metro Plan. Refinement plans include functional plans, special area studies and neighborhood plans. Land use regulations are a primary mechanism for implementing t'he Metro Plan. For the Eugene portion of the urban growth boundary, current land use regulations are primarily contained in Chapter 9 Land Use of the Eugene Code, 1971. Under the 1987 "urban transition" agreement between Lane county and the City of Eugene, Lane County amended Chapter 10 of the Lane Code to reflect adoption of the City's Land Use Code for application wkhin the uninco~orated portion of the Eugene urban growth boundary and transferred the responsibility and authority to administer the code to the City. As a result, amendments to the Land Use Code need to be adopted by the Lane County Board of Commissioners as well as the Eugene City' Council. In February 2001, the Eugene City Council adopted a new Land Use Code, effective August 1, 2001 for the area within the Eugene City 1/mks. Lane Co~ty adoption of the new Land Use Code for apPlication within the unincorporated port:ion of the Eugene urban growth boundary is pending. S~aff and the public identified errors, omissions and clarifications to the new Land Use Code that could only be corrected tbxough amendments to the Code. Most of those corrections were effected by adoption of Ordinance No. 20235, approved by the Council on October 8, 2001 and approved by the Mayor on October 10, 2001. Two of the items proposed for amer~dment were removed by the Co~c~t for future consideration, and are the sub, oct of the Ordinance to which these findings are attached. The following criteria shall be applied by the elected officials to the adoption of the Eugene Land Use Code: (1) Consistency with applicable statewide planning goals as adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; (2) Consistency wifh applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted refinement plans; and Exhibit A Findings Page (3) the case o£ establis?nnent of a special area zone, is consistent with EC 9.3020 Criteria ~hment of an S Speci:al Area Zone. Findings of Consistency With the Statewide Planning Goals Goal i: Citizen !nvolvemeat To develop a ckizen involvement program that insures the opportunities for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The two amendments to the Land Use Code effected by this Ordinance were part of a package of minor amendments developed by the Planning Commission to address errors, omissions and cl~fications identiSed by staff, by the public at training sessions on the new Land Use Code, and tl:~rou~ review of building permit and land use apphcations submitted alker the new Land Use Code took effect. On July 27~ 2001~ the Notice of Proposed Action was submitted to DLCD as required by ORS 19T610(1), YVritten notice of the joint Eugene and Lane County planning commissions public hearing on the minor Land Use Code amendments was mailed on Friday, August 10. Written notice was mailed to individuals who requested notice of adoption of the new Land Use Code, who attended training sessions on the new Land Use Code, to Eugene neighborhood associations, and to a!ist of interested p~es for Lane County planning commission pubhc hearings provided by Lane County staff. Notice of the joint planning commission public hearing was also published in the Eugene Register-Guard 20 days in advance of the joint planning commission hearing. Written comments received in advance of the September 11, 2001 joint Eugene and Lane Contrary planning commission public hearing were distributed to the planning comanissions prior to the public heafing~ Written co--eats received at the public hearing were dis~buted prior to Eugene and Lane County planning commission meetings on recommendatior~s to the elected officials. The Eugene Planning Corm~nission held two work sessions on the minor Land Use Code amendments and forwarded a reco~endation to the Eugene City Council on October 1, 2001. Written notice of the Eugene City Co~cil public hearing was sent to the interested parties list, inc!u&g all who submitted written or oral testimony to the planning corranissions, on September 25, 2001. The Eugene City Council held a public hearing on the full package of minor Land Use Code amendments on October 8, 2001. At that time the Eugene City Council removed for future consideration the items that are the subject of the attached Ordinance and effected the other minor amendments by adoption of Ordinance No. 20235. On December 10, 2001 the Eugene City Council held another pubhc hearing on the two amendments to the Land Use Code proposed in the attached Ordinance. The citizen involvement program described above exceeds local and state requirements for arnendmenB to the Eugene Code, I971 and has provided ample opportunities for citize-~s to be involved throughout the process. Therefore, these amendments comply with Goal 1. Exhibk A F~dings Page 2 To estab!ish 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 base for such decisions and actions. The Eugene Land Use Code specifies the procedure and criteria to be used on considering amendments to the code. These substantive and procedural requirements ensure that code amendments Mll be based upon substantial evidence in a record established through the review process apphcable to the code amendment under consideration. Therefore, these ~mendments comply with Goal 2. Goal 3: Agricultural Lands Goal 4: Forest Lands The Eugene urban growfn boundary does not include any lands intended for preservation and maintenance as agricultural lands -under Goal 3 or forest lands under Goal 4. ~erefore, these goals do not apply.. Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources These amendments do not affect compliance with Goal 5. Goal& Air~ Water and Land Resources Quality These amendments do not affect compliance with Goal 6. Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards These amendments do not affect compliance with Goal 7. Goal 8: Recreational Needs These amendments do not affect compliance with Goal 8. Goal 9: Economic Development These amendments do not affect compliance with Goal 9. Goal I0: Housing These amendments do not affect compliance with Goal 10. Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services These amendments do not affect compliance with Goal 11. Goal 12: Transportation These amendments do not affect compliance with Goal 12. Goal 13: Energy Conservation These amendments do not affect compliance with Goal 13. Ex&i'b~ A F~n~ngs Page 3 Goal ~4: atioa These;~endments do not affect compliance with Goal 14. GOal !5: Willamette River Greenway These amendments do not affect compliance with Goal 15. Goal !6: Estuarine Resources Goal ]17: Coastal Shorelands Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes GOal !9: Ocean Resources There are no such areas wkhin the Eugene urban growth bo~dary. app¢. Therefore, these goals do not Findings of Consistency with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted refinement plans Residential Land Use and Housing Element These amendments are consistent with the policies in this element and do not affect the inventory ofbaildable residential land, Therefore, these amendments are consistent with this element of the Metro Plan. Economic Element These amendments are consistent with the policies in this element and do not affect the inventory ofbuitdable commercial or industrial land. Therefore, these amendments comply with this element of the Metro Plan. Environmental Resources Element These amendments are consistent with the policies in this element. Therefore, these amendments are consistent with this element of the Metro Plan. Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterway Element These amendmems to not address this element. Therefore this element does not apply to these amendments. Environmental Design Element These amendments ro not address this element. a:mendments. Therefore this elernent does not apply to these Transportation Element These amendments are consistent with the policies in this element. Therefore these anaendments are consistent with this element. Exhibit A Findings Page 4 Public Utilities, Services, and Facilities Element These amendments to not address this elemenL There£ore this element does not apply to these mnendments. Parks and Recreation Facilities Element These amendments to not address this element. amendments. Therefore this element does not apply to these Energy Element These amendments to not address this etemenL amendments. Therefore this element does not apply to these Citizen Involvement Element The citizen involvement process for these amendments, as outlined under findings for Statewide Planning Goal l, are consistent with the policies in this elemenL Therefore, these amendments are consistent witch this element. In the case of establishment of a special area zone, is consistent with EC 9.302(} Criteria for Establk~hme~t of an S_Special Area Zone. These amendments do not establish a special area zone. Therefore, this criteria does not apply to these amendments. E~ibit A Page 5