HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 19995ORDINANCE N0, 19995
AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; AND
AMENDING SECTIONS 9.035, 9.512, 9,546 AND 9.fi20 OF THE
EUGENE CODE, 1911.
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Subsection ~4} of Section 9.035 of the Eugene Code, 1911 is
amended by adding anew subparagraph fig} thereto, to provide:
9.035 Subdivision Tentative Plan Procedure.
~4} Tentative Subdivision P1 an - P1 anni n Director Decision.
Un1 ess the applicant agrees to a 1 onger time period, the planning director shall
approve, cond i t i ona11 y approve, or deny a tentative plan application with
findings and conclusions thereon, within 34 days of receipt of a compl ete and
accurate application . The planning director's decision shat 1 be based on the
fallowing criteria:
fig} The street layout of the proposed subdivision sha11
disperse motor traffic onto more than one public 1 acal street when:
1. The subdivision exceeds 19 lots; or
2. The sum of proposed subdivision lots and the
existing lots utilizing a publ i c 1 ocal street would exceed 19
lots,
and that public 1 ocal street i s the s i ng1 a means of ingress and
egress; unless the planning director determines it is not feasible
due to physical constraints, such as topography, the previous 1 ayout
of the surrounding area, or similar constraints.
Section 2. Subsection ~fi}~c}3. of Section 9.512 of the Eugene Code, 1911,
is amended to provide:
9,512 Tentative Plan Consideration.
~6} . Decision. Unless the applicant agrees to a 1 onger time period,
the hearings off~c~al shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny a tentative
p1 an appl ~ cats on w~ th f ~ nd~ ngs and conclusions thereon, within 15 days fo11 owi ng
the close of the public hearing and the retard. Within five days after the
decision is rendered, the hearings official shall mail a notice thereof to the
applicant, coordinator, and persons who have requested notification. Decisions
pertaining to a parti cut ar phase shall i nc1 ude review and recagni ti on of the
entire deve1 opment. Decisions i n al l phases shat 1 be based on the fo11 awi ng
criteria:
~c} The proposed deve1 opment's general design and character,
including but not 1 imi ted to anticipated bui 1 di ng 1 ocati ons, but k
and height, location and distribution of recreation space, parking,
Ordinance - 1
roads, access and other uses, wi 11:
1. Be set back or screened as necessary to ensure
privacy to ad jvi ni ng properties, and
2. Avoid unnecessary disruption or removal of attrac-
ti ve natural features and vegetati an, and
3. Disperse motor traffic from planned unit
developments onto more than one public 1 ocal street when : ~ 1 }
the planned unit development exceeds 19 lots for units}; or
~2} the sum of proposed planned unit development lots for
units} and the ex~st~ng lets for units} utilizing a public
1 ocal street would exceed 19 lots for units } , and that publ i c
1 ocal street i s the s i ngl a means of ingress and egress; unless
a finding is made that it is not feasible due to physical
constra~ nts, such as topography, the previous 1 ayout of the
surrounding area, or similar constraints.
Section 3. Section 9.546 of the Eugene Code, 1971 is amended to provide:
9.546 Residential Net Densit .
~1} Net densities in residential areas are 1 invited as follows:
~ a} RA and R-1 districts . Except as provided for i n section
9.060, i n the RA and R-1 districts there shat l be a mi n i mum of 4, 500
square feet of lot or development site area per dwelling unit.
fib} R-2 district. Between 10 and 24 units per acre.
~c} R-3 district. Between 15 and 40 units per acre.
~d} R-4 district. Between 20 and 110 units per acre.
~2} Buildings and uses conforming to the residential density
requirements in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts on date of adoption} are
exempt from sections 9.612 to 9.620 pertaining to nonconforming uses. This
exemption is limited to development sites in the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zoning
districts on which residential buildings and uses existed, or in which a building
permit or 1 and use application i s pending, on date of adoption} . If such a
bu i 1 di ng which i s nonconforming for minimum density i s destroyed by fire or other
causes beyond, the control of the owner, the development site may be redeveloped
with the previous number of un~t~s} if completely rebuilt within five years. If
not completely rebuff 1 t within five years, the level apment site i s subject to the
dense ty standards of the s sects on.
~3} For purposes of this section, "net density" is the number of
dwelling units per. acre .of land i n actual residenti a1 use including areas
considered part of the residential use, such as common open space and other areas
which are for the exclusive use of the residents i n the development. For
purposes of calculating net density, the acreage of land considered part of the
residenti a1 use shall exclude dedicated reads, parks, and public foci l i ti es, The
acreage a1 so may exclude natural resource areas, at the discretion of the
developer. As used herei n, a natural resource area i s def i ned as the area wi thi n
the mapped boundaries of any 1 ocal l y inventoried wetland, pond, stream, channel ,
river, lake or upland wi 1 d1 i fe habitat area.
Section 4. Section 9.620 of the Eugene Code, 1911, is amended by adding
a new Subparagraph ~d} thereto, to provide:
9.620 Exemptions . The following are exempt from these non-conformity
Ordinance • 2
prov~s~ons:
~d} Buildings and uses which had a conforming residential
den s ~ ty accord ~ ng to the zoning ordinance an date of adoption } are
exempt from regulations pertaining to non-conformities. Thi s
exemption is limited to development sites in the R-~, R-3, and R•4
zoning districts on which the residential building and uses existed,
or in which a building permit or land use application is pending on
date of adoption}. If such a building which is nonconforming for
m~n~mum density ~s destroyed by fire or other causes beyond the
control of the owner, the development site may be redevel aped with
the previous number of units} if completely rebuilt within five
years : If not compl ete1y rebuff 1 t within five years, the development
s ~ to ~ s subject to the density standards of section 9.546.
Section 5. The findings attached as Exhibit A hereto and incorporated
herein by reference are adopted in support of this Ordinance.
Section 6. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence
of the City Attorney, i s authorized to administratively correct any 'reference
errors contained herein or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1911, to the
provisions added, amended or repealed herein.
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
7th d ~`
ay of December, 1994 ~ day of December, 1994
c~~..
City Recor er ~ Mayor
Ordinance - 3
EXHIBIT A
FIlVDINGS AND CGNCLUSIONS GF THE EUGENE CITY CGUNCIL
RE: Residential Development Code Amendments (CA 94-2)
Background
Qn May 9, 1994, the Eugene Planning Commission and City Council met for the annual
review of the Planning Commission's wank program. Discussion focused on the
commission's recommendation to develop an Urban Development Functional Plan during
FY95. The council asked the commission to return in June with a list of possible "stopgap"
measures to address innmediate development issues in advance of the plan.
The Planning Comnussion developed several possible measures and presented them to the
City Council on June 2,1994. The council approved three motions relating to residen~al
development: 1} to move up the start date currently in the Planning Commission work
program. on the establishment of minimum residential density requirements in the medium-
and high-density residentiaal zoning districts ~R-Z, R-3, and R-4. zones}; ~} establishment of
minimum density requirements in the low-density zones, e. g. , maximum lot size limits BRA
and R-1 zones} be placed as a separate item on the Plan~ung Commission work program; and
3} that the zoning code be amended to require secondary access when a residential
subdivision or PUD, singly or in the aggregate, exceeds 19 units or lots. These work items
were packaged as one project, the Residential Development Code Amendments, for
consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Residential Development Code
Amendments on October 4, 1994. Notice of the hearing was provided in accordance with
Chapter 9 Amendment Procedures, Eugene Code Sec~on 9.11349. Following the public
hearing and work sessions held on Dctober 10,17, and 24, 1994, the Planning Commission
recommended the following:
1. Delete current code language which imposes only maximum density
requirements and replace with a minimum and maximum density range for the R-2,
R-3, and R-4 zoninng districts;
2. Create an exemption for residential development that will become nonconfornoang,
i.e., residential development in the R-2, R 3 and R-4 zoning districts that is e~~i.sting
but does not meet minimum density requirements; and
3. Provide that natural resource areas may be excluded in the area calculated far
density in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts.
4. Consideration of minimum density in the low-density residential zones be delayed
at this tune and incorporated iota the Zoning Code Review Project; and
5. Consideration of secondary access requirements be delayed at this time and
incorporated into the Local Street System Study.
Gn November 14, 1994, the City Council held a public hearing on the Planning
Commission's recommendation concerning the Residential Development Code
Amendment project. Notice of the hearing was provided in accordance with Chapter 9
Amendment Procedures, Eugene Cade Section 9.113b. Un November 28, 1994, the City
Council. considered the public testimony, the Planning Commission's record, and materials
and Information provided to the council. The Council approved the following motions:
1. Adopt the Planning Commission recommendation concerning minimum density
requirements in the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones. items 1-3 above.}
2. Accept the Planning Commission recommendation concerning minimum
density requirements in the low-density zones, i.e., consideration of minimum
density in the law-density residential zones be delayed at this time and
incorporated into the Zoning Code Review Project. Item 4 above.} The
Council also approved a motion that the Zoning Code Review Project be done
in a two-year cycle, i.e., be before the City Council for consideration in two
years.
3. To not accept the Planning Commission recommend concerning secondary
access item 5 above}, and to bring back to the Council an ordinance
incorporating the requirement of secondary access when a subdivision or a
PUD exceeds 19 lots or the sum of proposed lots and existing lots utilizing a
public local street would exceed 19 lots, and that public local street is the
single means of ingress and egress; provide for exceptions if it is not feasible
due to physical constraints. The Council also asked for a memorandum
providing some examples or situations of how the exceptions would be
implemented in order to provide legislative history of the intent of the
exceptions provision.
~ndin s
The City Council finds that the code amendments as described in the ordinance are consistent
with adopted plans, policies, and standards as follows.
The amendment concerning requiring minimum density in the R-2, R-3, and R-4 multi-family
zones relates to the following goal, objectives, and policies contained in the Residential Land
Use and Housing Element of the Metro Plan:
Goal. Provide viable residential communities so ail residents can choose sound,
affordable housing that meets individual needs, Page III-A-3.}
objective 2. Provide residential areas that offer a variety of housing densities, types, sizes,
costs, and locations to meet projected demand. Page III-A-3.}
Objective ~. Provide for and promote generally higher residential densities in the current
urban service area to encourage a compact urban growth form. Page III-A-
4.}
Polic 5. Establish specif c density ranges within zoning ordinances that are consistent
with the broad density categories of this plan. Translation to an equivalent of
persons per acre corresponding to the density categories in this plan may be
substituted for dwelling units per acre by local governments. Eugene and
Springfield shall establish standards for allowing a waiver of the specific
density ranges in this plan to increase the supply of low- and moderately-
priced housing.
a. Law density--Through ten dwelling units per gross acre.
b. Medium density--Over ten dwelling units per gross acre.
c. High density--Over 20 dwelling units per gross acre. Page ZII-A-S . }
Polic b. Review residential land development regulations to ensure that they encourage
a variety of housing densities and types. Page III-A-S.}
Pvlic~~ 23. Encourage increased residential density at various locations within cities by
implementing programs, policies, and code modifications that both establish
minimum densities and allow maximum densities permitted by local or
Metropolitan General Plan density categories in designated areas, when
consistent with other planning policies. ~Fage III-A-~.}
The Willakenzie Area Plan contains the following policy and proposed action in the Plan's
Residential Policies and Proposed Actions Section:
Polic 2. Require new medium- density residential development in the willakenzie area
to achieve a minimum density level of lU dwelling units per acre and new
high-density residential development to achieve a minimum density level of 15
units per acre. If a future city wide code amendment establishes different
minvmum density levels than are established in this plan, the levels established
by the code will take precedence, except in the Chase Gardens High-Density
Residential area. Development in thus area shall achieve a minimum density
level of no less than 15 dwelling units per acre.
Proposed Action 2.1. Amend the Eugene City Code to establish aminimum-density
requirement for medium- and high-density development within
the Eugene Urban Growth boundary. The suggested minimum
density requirements are 14 DUTAcre for areas designated
Medium-Density Residential and 15 DUTAcre for areas
designated High-Density Residential. Page 16. }
The proposal to establish mihimum density requirements in the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zoning
districts is consistent with the above policy basis. It was on the Planning Commission's
work Program as a work item to be initiated in FY95 in order to implement the policy
language in the adapted plans described above,
The secondary access requirement, which is essentially a modification to the current
requirement in the PUD ordi:na.nce and also applying it to subdivisions, has relevance to Land
Use Policy 5 in TransPlan:
Muaimize the adverse impact of the automobile on local residential streets through the
selective use of alternative street designs and application of traffic management
techniques. Page 4.}
This policy includes several implementation strategies, such as traffic diverters and providing
far adequate arterial and collector streets. The proposal here to require secondary access
addresses this policy at the initial street planning stage. It is intended to disperse traffic onto
more than just one local street when larger developments are proposed. Additionally, it
looks at the overall use of a local street in the aggregate, so if a development proposal
increases the use of a local street beyond 191ots, and that local street is the only means of
ingress and egress ~i. e. , it is the only way in and the only way out}, then access to another
street is required when feasible. If access to a development is from a collector or arterial
street, then this requirement is nat applicable.
Conclusion
The City Council finds that, based on the above findings, the residential code amendments
are consistent with adopted plans, policies, and standards. _