Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Minor Land Use Code Amendments EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY c Work Session: Minor Land Use Code Amendments Meeting Date: October 12, 2005 Department: Planning and Development www.eugene-or.gov Agenda Item Number: B Staff Contact: Steve Nystrom Contact Telephone Number: 682-8385 ISSUE STATEMENT A work session on the proposed minor amendments to the Eugene Land Use Code (Chapter 9) will be held by the City Council in preparation for the public hearing on October 24, 2005. BACKGROUND Four years ago, the City of Eugene completed a comprehensive update of its Land Use Code (LUCU). Throughout the adoption process, it was recognized that this new Land Use Code should not remain a static document. In 2003 (FY04), the City Council directed staff to bring back a list of potential improvements to the Land Use Code. Following City Council adoption ofLUCU, the City has monitored how the Land Use Code has been working. Not surprisingly, staff, applicants, citizens and design professionals have identified specific elements which need attention. Staff has been maintaining a log of these concerns, which at present, amount to approximately 200 separate items. Many of these concerns are minor in nature, but cumulatively, they pose a significant challenge in the administration of the Land Use Code. The remaining items constitute more significant concerns regarding the function or purpose of a particular requirement. Given the volume of items and limited resources, staff proposed a two-phased approach. Phase 1 of this process (Minor Fixes) attempts to resolve conflicts, gaps or ambiguities which can be addressed in a fairly simple process without raising substantial policy concerns. Phase 2 (Key Amendments) will potentially include more significant amendments. Given the policy implications associated with the Key Amendments, a comprehensive process including extensive public outreach will be implemented for that phase. That phase will be initiated upon completion of Phase 1. Over the past several months, the Planning Commission held a series of study sessions to determine which potential amendments should be included in this "Minor Fixes" phase. Examples of the proposed Minor Fixes include: . Clarifying specific definitions and terms; . Filling in missing code provisions such as bike and vehicle parking requirements for specific uses; . Clarifying requirements related to certain commercial and residential development standards; and . Updating procedural requirements for land use applications consistent with recently adopted State laws. L\CMOI200S Council AgendaslMOSI012lS0S1012B.doc An important component of the Planning Commission's review was its ability to establish ground rules for review of these amendments. In the interest of keeping the process moving forward, any amendment which posed a concern with a commissioner was allowed limited discussion (10 minutes). If the concerns could not be satisfied, a straw vote was taken to either pull it off the list or keep it moving forward. If pulled off the list, it will be included in the Phase 2 process. Staff would recommend that the council utilize a similar approach when it deliberates on this matter. Following that process, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to formally consider the proposed amendments. The Planning Commission received testimony from four individuals. In general, public testimony was supportive of the proposed amendments. A copy of the minutes of this public hearing is attached. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission made minor edits to the draft ordinance and recommended City Council adoption of the minor code amendments. The commission also asked that the City Council give particular attention to two of the proposed amendments: Item #32: EC 9.5350: Home Occupations on flag lots: This proposed amendment clarifies the existing prohibition regarding home occupations on flag lots. The Planning Commission raised concern that many low-impact home businesses (e.g. web-based services, businesses with no customers or deliveries) would be precluded. They asked the council to reconsider the current prohibition. Item#37: EC 9.5800: Temporary Uses in commercial zones: The current code limits temporary uses on commercial property to a 2 week period, but does not specify how many events are allowed per year. The proposed amendment limits temporary uses to three per year. The Planning Commission asked the City Council to consider more flexible parameters. To assist the council in the review of this proposal, staff has attached a matrix of the proposed amendments which provides a synopsis of the existing problem and the proposed solution for each amendment. In addition, each code amendment is assigned a number on the matrix which is reflected in the corresponding code section of the draft ordinance to provide easier reference between the two documents. 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 first of two phases in staff s effort to complete this task. COUNCIL OPTIONS The council may approve the draft ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission, direct staff to modify the ordinance or deny the ordinance. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends adoption of the Minor Code Amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission. L\CMOI200S Council AgendaslMOSI012lS0S1012B.doc SUGGESTED MOTION None; this is a work session only. ATTACHMENTS A. Matrix of proposed amendments B. Draft Ordinance and Findings C. Minutes of Planning Commission public hearing D. Written Testimony FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Steve Nystrom Telephone: 682-8385 Staff E-Mail: steven.a.nystrom@ci.eugene.or.us L\CMOI200S Council AgendaslMOSI012lS0S1012B.doc Proposed Minor Code fixes (As authorized by the Planning Commission) ATTACHMENT A CD 9.0500 o 9.0500 @ 9.0500 @ 9.0500 @ 9.0500 @ 9.0500 (j) 9.2160 @ 9.2161(1) @ Table 9.2170 9.217 1 (5)(c) @ Definition of "canopy tree" does not allow any coniferous trees Definition of curved lot Definition of "Development site" Duplex definition: Attachment requirements "Legal lot" and "Lot of record" definition regarding lots not created through a plat "Lot width" definition "Vision clearance area" definition regarding dimensions CUP required for R V sales in C-2 zone C-l limitation of 5,000 square feet of floor area per tenant as it relates to existing buildings Percent ofbuilding fayade required within 15' maximum setback for GO zone Projects are prohibited from utilizing coniferous trees in order to meet the canopy trees requirements "Curved lots" are listed in Lot Standards Table (Ee 92760), but the term is not defined Definition restricts ability to comprehensively evaluate a project when streets bisect a site Code requires a duplex to be one building, but does not specify how the two units must be attached Requires recording of deeds prior to April 2, 1962. In some cases, the deeds may be signed but not recorded by this date Definition does not apply well to non-rectangular shaped lots. Creates confusion in evaluation of subdivisions/partitions The definition explains how to determine the vision clearance triangle but doesn't denote that the legs are 35 feet long CUP requirement excessive compared to other similar uses which are permitted outright (i.e. auto and motorcycle sales, auto repair, service stations) Code is unclear if 5,000 sq. ft. limitation applies to new tenants in existing buildings which already exceed 5,000 sq ft. GO zone does not specify the minimum percentage of building facade that is required within the 15' maximum setback, as is specified in other zones Enable a wider range of canopy trees available by allowing some coniferous trees Provide definition of curved lot Clarify definition so that a developmerlt site can include arcels se arated b a street Clarify minimum requirements for how units must be attached, consistent with current interpretati ons Change definition to be based on date that the deeds are signed Revise definition to erlsure that lots, regardless of shape, have adequate buildable area Include the dimension of 35 feet in the definition to coincide with the figure Allow RV sales in C-2 zone as a permitted use Clarify that the limitation only applies to new buildings in C-1, so as to enable tenant reuse of existing building Clarify the minimum percent of building frontage that must be located within the maximum setback n 9.2171(5) @ Buildings in C~2 & C~3 are required to be within 15' of a street or "Internal private way" "Internal private way" is not defined. Term is intended to account for formal accessways within large commercial centers Only plant and garden supply displays are allowed within 7' of front property line within C- 2&C4 Code incorrectly references the parking lot standards rather than drive-through standards Standard requires ground floor windows on all sides of a large commercial building. No exceptions for loading docks Lot width is not measured by an averaging approach (see 9.0500 for definition of lot width) 9.2171(1l,d) 9.803@0.. 12- 9.2171(15)(e) @ 9,2173(10)(c) @ 9.2180,9.2470, 9.2686, 9.3220, 9.3822 @ 9 .2450(table) @ 9.2450( table) @ 9.2683(2) @ 9.2685(1) @ 9.274b @t 9,2760 (table) 9.276l(6) @ Outdoor Display within required setback Reference to stacking lane requirements Large commercial building standards - loading docks ., Average Lot Width" requirement for Commercial, Industrial, Public Land, Downtown Westside & Royal Node Special Area zones Land Use Table for Industrial Zones related to Telecommunication towers and facilities Trucking Terminals allowed in I~2 and I~3 zones PL zone requires a Site Review for many uses and a CUP for more significant uses within 300' of residential property Height of buildings within 50' of a residential zone restricted to height limit of adjacent residential zone Land Use Table for Residential Zones, related to rowhouses Creation of duplex, triplex & fourplex lots in new subdivisions Section 9.5750 allows Telecommunication towers in I- 1, but this is not reflected on the Use Table (EC 9.2450) Since 1968 this use has been permitted outright in these two zones, however it is not specifically listed in the 1-2 and 1-3 use tables Language unclear. Could be read to require a Site Review in addition to a CUP. The intent was to elevate more intense uses to a more intense public review process (i.e. CUP) Language is not clear that the special height restriction is limited to that portion of a building within the 50' buffer Table does not reference special limitations listed in EC 9.73 5 (Siting Requirements) Code not clear this is limited to subdivision plats, not partitions. Also implies development of a duplex, triplex or fourplex is mandatory, rather than an option, thereby precluding a . single family residence Utilize existing terms within the "Large Commercial Facilities" Development standards which currently address this issue Establish an adjustment review option for outdoor displays consistent with purpose of commercial design standards Replace current reference with correct reference to drive- through standards Exempt the wall containing the loading dock from window requirement Eliminate the word "average" from each code section Add the .'S" symbol to the Land Use Table enabling Telecommunication towers in the I-I zone, subject to special standards Clarify that trucking terminals are permitted outright in the 1-2 and 1-3 zones by listing in the industrial use matrix Clarify language such that the two lists of uses are exclusive of each other Clarify that the special height restriction applies only for that portion of a building within 50' of a residential zone Include reference in the Land Use Table regarding special limitations listed in Ee 9.735 Modify language consistent with duplex provisions in 9.2741(4,5,6). Also, clarify that duplex, triplex, fourplex designation entitles (rather than mandates) owner to develop lot . with extra unit(s) II 9.2760 (table) @ 9.2760 @ 9.27~ ttj) 9.276~. ~ 9.2775(1) @ 9.2795(3)(a) 6JJ Table 9.391~ @ 9.4730(3); 9.4830(2,b) @ 9.5250(1)(b) @ 9.5350 @ R-l allows rowhouse lots at 1,600 sq ft, but requires at least 50' oflot width 13,500 sq. ft. maximum lot size requirement for R-llots Exceptions to maximum lot size Special standards for establishing duplex, triplex and fourplex lots in subdivisions Purpose statement regarding flag lots Exemption fTom Solar Setback requirement: Lots having 20% slope and generally north facing Residential Day Care, 3-12 persons served in Whiteaker Special Area Zone Site review required for wetland restoration projects approved by West Eugene Wetland Mitigation Bank team Farm Animal "Standards ~ lot size for large animals Home Occupation Standards The lot standards table does not include a reduced lot width necessary to accommodate smaller rowhouse lots Standard intended to encourage infill in R-l by llmiting new parcels to 13,500 sq. ft. Currently applies to existing parcels as well (e.g. property llne adjustments) Current exceptions do not clearly allow waiver of the maximum lot size based on natural resource protection Provision is intended for R-1 lots only, but the code implies it affects all residential zones Purpose statement references old code provision regarding screening along flag lot driveway Intended to exempt parcels on steep slopes (>20%) which won't cast significant shadows on adjoining lots. Code incorrectly references south facing lots Table lists day care for 3-12 persons, but does not clarifY if use is allowed. Table does list day care for over 12 persons as permitted Site Review process provides no additional benefit as wetland restoration projects are subject to extensive review and requirements at State and Federal level that exceed local site review provisions Code is unclear on whether more than one lot can be used to get the minimum 20,000 square feet to allow large animals Standards only apply to residential zones even though code allows home occupations in residences located in some commercial zones Add a minimum lot width for R-1 rowhouse lots which reflects realistic rowhouse designs Revise language such that the R -1 maximum lot standard applies to land divisions only (subdivisions, partitions) Clarify that an exception to maximum lot size can be granted in order to protect natural resources SpecifY that this code section only applies to subdivisions in R-l zones Eliminate screening language consistent with current flag lot proVISIons Correct the compass reference eITor by referring to north facing lots regarding exemption Add an "s" in the permitted column to clarify that use is allowed if standards are met Eliminate requirement for site review for wetland restoration projects approved by the Mitigation Bank team within the /WB and IWP overlay zones Clarify that one lot must be at least 20,000 square feet to allow large animals Clarify code by removing the reference to all residential zones at the beginning of this section 9.5350 @ 9.5500(8)(a) @ 9.5500(9)(a)5; 9.5500(9)(c)2 @ ~ 9.5750(6,a,10); ~. 9.5750(6,b,11) CiiJ 9.5800(4)(c) ~ 9.5800(5)(b) @ 9.6l05( 4)tab1e @ 9.6105(4)table @ Home Occupation requirements R-2 Multi-Family Standards: Minimum landscaping and lot coverage standards Multi.Family Standards-- Minimum Common Open Space Requirement Requirements for telecommunication facilities Sign standards for temporary uses Duration of temporary uses in commercial zones Bike parking for Library use Bike parking for "Office Equipment and Supplies" use Code restricts flag lots from being used for home occupations [BC 9.2775(4)]. This is not reflected in 9.5350 Current language conflicts with revised lot coverage and open space standards. Requires all area outside of maximum allowed building footprint to be landscaped. Current provisions conflict: Minimum required open space area is 250 square feet, but (a)(5) requires minimum dimension of 20 feet, resulting in a 400 sq. ft. area Code requires review by Oregon Aeronautics Division. Agency has changed their name to the Oregon Department of Aviation Language could potentially allow signs to be placed off- site, or city-wide Current code allows temporary uses year round in 2 week increments (with 24 hours between events) Parking table does not specify breakdown for long and short term bike parking spaces Use is specifically identified in vehicle parking table, but was inadvertently left offthe bike parking table Martial Arts are specifically called out in Commercial and Industrial zones, but are not included in bike and vehicle parking requirements Code does not clarify tong held practice which exempts up to 20 outdoor seats when calculating parking requirement LUCU inadvertently changed this standard to require 1 space per 550 sq. ft. of floor area 9.6105(4)table; 9.6410(table) @ 9.6410(3) (jj) 9.6410 (table) @ Bike and Vehicle parking requirements for "Martial Arts" uses Parking requirements for outdoor restaurant seating Wholesale Trade: Required parking Add provision in Home Occupation Standards (EC 9.5350) clarifying prohibition on flag lots . Modify minimum landscaping requirement for the R-2 zone, consistent with open space proVIsIons Modify code to match existing interpretation of using a minimum dimension of 15 feet for open space Replace old name with current name of state agency Clarify that signs must be located on the site of the temporary use Apply limitation on the number of events allowed per year, similar to residential zones (3/yr.) Clarify that 25% shall be long term and 75% short term spaces, consistent with other similar uses Include Office Equipment and Supplies category with bike parking standards consistent with similar uses Insert "Martial Arts" use on respective parking tables consistent with the use tables for commercial and industrial zones Provide specific code provision exempting up to 20 outdoor seats from off-street parking requirements ModifY Wholesale Trade parking requirement back to original ratio of 1 space per 1650 sq. ft. 9.6420(3)(e) @ 9.6420(3)(1)(1) @ 9.6610(1) @ 9.6610(1) @ 9.6610(1) 9.66~ tItJ; 9.6630(1) @ 9.6640(4)(d) (jj) 9.6650(3)(c) @ 9.6670(6){b) @ 9.6709 ~. ~ 9.6730 9.8030 @ Parking island requirement regarding landscape coverage 5' Perimeter landscaping required for Parking Structures Exemptions to sign standards for "mall vending" Time Period for Election Sign Exemption Downtown Activity Zone Sign Exemption Installation of Signs prior to Permit Issuance Vision Clearance Area for Signs: Signs for Manufactured Home Park Reference to Revocable Permit Requirements for Signs in ROW Flood Plain Standards On-site Pedestrian Circulation Inconsistency between code language and figure. Figure indicates that parking islands need to meet L-2 standards while code language is silent Standard requires landscaping along interior property lines which in C-2 and C-3, can typically result in a landscape strip wedged between two buildings Exemption for signs related to "mall vending" is outdated due to repeal of Administrative Rule R-3.336 Code does not clearly tie the time period for erecting election signs to the date of an election in which Lane County residents may vote Eugene Code does not recognize existing provisions for portable signs downtown Language in code is not clear as to when signs may be installed Reference to Vision Clearance standards was not modified to match revised language describing when standards apply Code allows identity sign for a subdivision or Planned Unit Development but not a manufactured home park Current code requires revocable permit for all forms of signs. Some signs, such as plaques, or other minor signs don't warrant permit requirements Current standards do not match federally mandated requirements Code does not allow applicants to request alternative approaches to the requirements regarding pedestrian circulation Clarify that parking islands need to meet 70% landscape coverage requirement, consistent with L-2 standards 1 Modify standard to exempt perimeter landscaping along interior yards when the building is l5' or less from the property line Clarify that signs for vending within the "Downtown Activity Area" are exempt from Ch. 9 Clarify code so it is clear that election signs cannot be erected based on election dates in other counties Provide a reference in 9.6610 noting the existence of portable sign provisions in the Downtown Activity Zone Ordinance Clarify code to match current policy that permit issuance, not permit approval, must occur before installing sign Clarify this reference by using same applicability provisions as main Vision Clearance Area section Allow identity sign for a manufactured borne park consistent with other residential developments Revise code to allow Public Works staff the ability to waive revocable permit process for mlnor SIgnS Revise code to meet federal standards Create an adjustment review provision allowing consideration of alternatives to the current standards 9.6745(3)(b) @ 9.6745(3)(c) @ 9.6805; 9.6870 (table~.. ~ 9.6810 rf) 9.6815(2) @ 9.6820; 9.803~) (zj) 9.6870 (table) @ 9.6885(2) @ 9.7015 @ .. Projecting Architectural Features for Multiple Story Buildings Allowance for signs in required front yard setbacks Dedication of Public Ways Requires new local streets to intersect with other streets at intervals of 600' or less Adjustment Review regarding street connectivity Cul-de-sac requirements Cul-de-sac design standards Tree preservation plans requires report from certi.fied arborist Completeness Review Previous language was inadvertently omitted which allowed eaves, chimneys and similar architectural features above one story to project into side yards (as is allowed for the first story) Code section describing allowed intrusions into setbacks does not match allowance cited in residential zones & sign standards References to public way design standards do not ensure consistency with public improvement policies and Arterial Collector Street Plan Code does not allow flexibility from the 600' standard expect for situations where physical constraints preclude compliance' Adjustment review process is redundant. Street connectivity is already evaluated as part of land use application (subdivision, partition, PUD, etc) Language describing when a cul-de-sac VS. alternative designs (i.e. hammerheads) can be used is confusing Right-of-way (ROW) and paving width requirements are not consistent with other adopted public works standards Requirement is limited to certified arborists. In some cases, landscape architects are better equipped to look at broader site design options to improve tree preservation Language is not consistent with more recently adopted State Statutes; primarily the 10 day response period required of I applicants Modify language to clarify that these architectural features are allowed to project as per current policy Revise code to be consistent in all three locations allowing si gns to extend up to 5' into 1 0' front yard setback Provide necessary references in Chapter 9 to ensure other adopted design standards and policies are apphed Create an exception provision allowing requests for exceptions to the 600' standard while maintaining street connectivity and emergency access objectives. Eliminate requirement for separate adjustment review and fold in exception process as part of the primary land use application review Clarify circumstances in which exceptions to cuI-de-sac design can be requested and granted Revise the table to specify consistent right-of-way standards for cul-de-sacs Revise standard to allow landscape architects as well as certified arborists to provide the required report Revise language to ensure consistency with State Law 9.7020 @ 9.7110 @ 9.7605,9.7655 ~ 9.7805(map), 9.7885/. ,:;/"-;'\ ~l 9.8010 (table) @ 9.8030(10) @ 9.8030(10) ~ 9.8055(1) (j}; 9.8055(1) @ Wai ver of time lines Type I decisions: Limits decisions to approval or denials Filing deadlines for appeals Industrial Corridor Map Reference to adopted plans includes specific dates for each plan Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Plans: Adjustments to parking standards Adjustment to parking standards: Timing and requirement for TDM plans Cluster Subdivision Criteria Cluster Subdivisions: Relaxation of lot and development standards Language implies any time line can be waived, however a recently adopted state statute limits time waivers for land use applications EC 9.8415 and 9.8715 allow conditional approval of property line adjustments and unimproved easement vacations which conflicts with language under Type I process Code requires filing of appeals within 12 days of notice of decision but does not specify the time of day for this deadline ICCO map doesn't precisely match the boundaries in the 1991 Industrial Corridor Agreement Many dates listed in table are not reflected on adopted plan or do not correspond to date of adoption. Ifplans are amended, it would require a code amendment to reflect new date Code allows the city to require an annual report for TDM's involving a reduction in minimum parking, but not for TDM's involving excess parking Requires TDM approval before, rather than a part of adjustment review. Requires formal TDM for all requests. Some adjustment reviews can be adequately addressed without a formal TDM Criteria redundant. Same criteria already captured through compliance with standard subdivision criteria. Reference to Ee 9.8015 (relaxation of lot standards) doesn't include intended range of standards which can be relaxed (i.e. Setbacks, lot coverage etc) Clarify limitation on timeline waivers consistent with state statutes Correct conflicting language by amending EC 9.7110 to allow for conditional approvals Specify that the deadline expires at Spm or the close of the regular business day Revise geographic description in 9.7885 and map to match agreement Eliminate dates from the table Establish ability to require annual reports for TDM plans requesting adjustments to maximum parking requirements Revise language so that a TDM plan is reviewed as part of adjustment review. Allow ability to waive formal TDM plan if required adjustment review criteria are otherwise met Strike BC 9.8055(1)(c), (d) and (e). Revise language and review process to provide intended range of standards available for relaxation while better integrating review into subdivision process. 9.8090(8)( c) Approval criteria for various 9.8215(1)(b) land use applications regarding 9 . 8220(2)(b ) ~ street connectivity standards 9.8320(5)(a)\!.9 9.8325(6)(a} 9. 8440(3)(a) 9.8515(1)(b) 9.8520(3)(b) 9.8130(2) @ 9.8335 @ 9.841~ C!3 9.8410(2) @ 9.8580 6JJ 9.8710 @ 9.8710(6) (jj) 9.8710(7) @ 9.8720 @) PUD Design Team must include a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), unless waived by Planning Director Modification to Approved Tentative POO's Property Line Adjustment: Surveyor Stamp required Property Line Adjustments: Title report required Final Subdivision requirements ROW vacation process ROW vacation: Consent requirements Required consent for public utility easement vacations Unimproved ROW vacation: Payment of assessed value Approval criteria require compliance with street connectivity standards (EC 9.6800-9.6870), but inadvertently excluded reference to pri vate street design standards (EC 9.6875). Unnecessary requirement without benefit Code does not allow a modification to Tentative PUD's. Any minor changes require an entirely new PUD Code does not reflect ORS requirement for surveyor stamp on parallel adjustments for unplatted lots Staff have, at times, had difficulty obtaining title reports from applicants that are current, ~iven lack of clarity in the code EC 9.7025 requires performance agreements related to subdivisions. No means available to consider modifications to agreements Code requires Type IV review but does not clarify that PC review is not included in this particular case, pursuant to ORS Code only references a portion of ORS requirements which apply to vacations of ROW Language conflicts with intent to require consent from any owners adjacent to the portion of easement to be vacated. Implies consent also required from unaffected neighbors Code does not specify how and when applicant shall pay for vacated unimproved ROW (Type II process) Amend various code references to ensure approval criteria require compliance with private street standards (EC 9.6875) Eliminate the AICP requirement Establish a provision to allow Modifications to Tentative PUD's similar to Final POO process (Type II review) Add language consistent with ORS requirement to require surveyor stamp in these situations Add language to require a current preliminary title report Establish Type II modification process similar to other performance agreements (I.e. Site Reviews, CUP's, PUD's) Clarify that Type IV vacations goes directly to City Council (public hearing) Include reference to applicable ORS requirements Revise language to clarify consent is only required of owners of property adjacent to the easement in question Provide language similar to Type IV ROW vacations Last revised 9/30/05 ORDINANCE NO. 09/27/05 ATTACHMENTB AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING LAND USE; AMENDING SECTIONS 9.0500, 9.2160,9.2161,9.2111,9.2173,9.2180,9.2450, 9.2470, 9.2683, 9.2685, 9.2686, 9.2741, 9.2760, 9.2761,9.2775, 9.2795,9.3220,9.3822,9.3910, 9.4730,9.4830, 9.5250, 9.5350, 9~5500, 9.5750,9.5800,9.6105,9.6410,9.6420,9.6610,9.6615, 9.6630, 9.6640,9.6650,9.6670, 9.6709, 9.6730,9.6745, 9.6805, 9.6810, 9.6815, 9.6820,9.6830,9.6870,9.6885,9.7015,9.7020, 9.7110,9.7605,9.7655,9.7805, 9.7885,9.8010,9.8030,9.8055,9.8090,9.8215, 9.8220,9.8310,9.8320,9.8325, 9.8410, 9.8440, 9.8515, 9.8520, 9,8700, 9.8710, 9.8715, AND 9.8720 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; ADDING SECTIONS 9.8335 AND 9.8580 TO THAT CODE; AND PROVIDING EFFECTIVE DATES. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOllOWS: Section 1. The definitions of "Canopy Tree," "Development Site" "Dwelling, Duplex," "Legal Lot," "Lot Width," Section C of "Partition," and "Vision Clearance Area" in Section 9.0500 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended, and new definitions of "Curved lot" and "Substantial Improvement" are added thereto, to provide: 9.0500 @ CD (J) (j) Definitions. As used in this land use code, unless the context requires otherwise. the following words and phrases mean: Curved Lot. A lot having frontage on a street with a centerline radius of less than 300' and a change In bearing of the centerline of at least 10 degrees across the frontage of the lot. For the purpose of determining lot frontage requirements, only those lots on the outside of a curved street shall be eligible for reduced lot frontage. Canopy Tree. A horizontally branching deciduous or coniferous tree species that generally grows to have a mature canopy width of at least 50 feet. Development Site. A tract of land under common ownership or control, either undivided or consisting of two or more contiguous lots of record. For the purpose of land use applications, development site shall also include [P]property under common ownership or control that is bisected by a I~] street or alley{ shall be considered one de':elopment site, unless the land 'Nag legally divided]. Dwelling, Duplex. A building designed and used as dwellings for 2 famities living independently of each other and having separate housekeeping facilities for each family that are connected either by common walls or common ceiling/floor connection. A building is not a duplex if one of the dwellings is a secondary Ordinance - 1 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK.4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)10.DOC @ @ @ @ 09/27/05 dwelling. Legal Lot. A lot of record that has boundary lines that were established: (A) Through a partitIon or subdivision procedure, or (8) By a deed [recorded] that was signed before April 2, 1962. Lot Width. The horizontal distance between [straight lines connecting front and Fear lot Hnoc; at each side of the lot, measured across the rear of the required front yard setback] the midpoints of the side property lines. Where more than one side property line exists along a given side yard, the combined length of the side property lines shall be used to determine the midpoint. Alley access parcel width is the distance between side lot fines measured along the alley property line. (See Figure 9.0500 Lot Lines, Lot Frontage, Lot Width, Lot Depth.) Partition. The division of a tract of land, in accordance with this land use code, into two or three parcels within a calendar year. A partition does not include: (C) Adjustment of a lot or parcel line by the relocation of a common boundary where an additional parcel or lot is not created and where the existing parcel or lot reduced in size by the adjustment is not in conflict with any applicable law or ordinance, including but not limited to provisions pertaining to minimum area, frontage, [average] width and required setbacks. Substantial Improvement. As used in sections 9.6705 to 9.6709, any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure either: A. Before the improvement or repair is started, or 8. If the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred. For the purposes of this definition, "substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not, however, include either: C. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary I or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or D. Any alteration of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a State Inventory of Historic Places. Vision Clearance Area. A triangular area within a lot immediately adjacent to the . intersection of streets to provide a clear area for viewing approaching traffic for public safety purposes. For the intersection of 2 improved public rights.of.waYt the vision clearance area is the triangular area of the lot at the intersection of two lot lines. At the intersection of a public street and a private street, the vision clearance area is the triangular area of the lot at the intersection of the lot line and each edge Ordinance - 2 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OO108082)10.DOC (j) @ @ 09/27/05 of the street. For all vision clearance areas, the apex is located at the intersection of the two 35 foot legs, extended jf necessary. The base of the triangle extends diagonally across the lot intersecting the two legs an equal distance from the apex. (See Figure 9.0500 Vision Clearance Area.) Section 2. The Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental Service and Recreational Vehicles and Heavy Truck Sales/Rental/Service entries in the Motor Vehicle Related Uses category of Table 9.2160 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide: Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental/Service, excluding [motorcycles,] recreational vehicles and heavy trucks Recreational Vehicles and Heavy Truck, Sales/Rental/Service p c p [G} p p Section 3. Subsection (1) of Section 9.2161 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.2161 Special Use Limitations for Table 9.2160. (1) Small Business Incentives in C-1. Each individual business is limited to 5,000 square feet of floor area in new buildings. Individual businesses shall be permitted to occupy up to 10,000 square feet of floor area on development sites that have a floor area ratio (FAR) of at least .65. Section 4. Subsections (5), (11), and (15) of Section 9.2171 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide: 9.2171 S~ecial Commercial Zone Development Standards for Table 9.2170. (5) The maximum front yard setbacks stated in Table 9.2170 Commercial Zone Development Standards. shall apply only to new bUildings and any building addition that increases the length of the building facade facing [tl1e] a street, internal accessway, private drive, or shopping street as defined in EC 9.2175(3) by at least 100%. For purposes of this subsection, front yard setback may be measured from a public street or from the edge of the sidewalk furthest from the curb of an internal accessway, private drive, or shopping street In addition, all new buildings and the portion of the development site specifically affected by the new building are subject to the @ Ordinance - 3 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\OS Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (00108082) 1 O.DOC @ 09/27/05 requirements of this subsection. (See Figure 9.2171(5) Maximum Front Yard Setbacks, Building Orientation, and Entrances.) (a) In C-1, at least 800/Q of all street facing facades of the building must be within the specified maximum front yard setback. (b) In C-2 and C-3, a minimum of 25% of all street facing facades must be within the specified maximum front yard setback, or, orientation to an internal [prhf3te way] accessway, private drive, or shopping street as defined in EC 9.2175(3) is permitted in compliance with EC 9.2173(4){a). (c) In GO, at least 60% of all street facing facades of the building must be within the specified maximum front yard setback. (Gd) Vehicular parking and circulation is not permitted in between the street and the portion of the building that is used to comply with this subsection. (ae) Buildings fronting on a street must provide a main entrance facing the street on any facade of the building within the front yard setback. A main entrance is a principal entrance through which people enter the building. A building may have more than one main entrance. Buildings having frontage on more than one street shall provide at least one main entrance oriented to a street. (ef) The land between the portion of a building complying with EC 9.2171 (5)(a) or (b) and a street must be landscaped or paved with a hard surface for use by pedestrians. If a hard surface is provided, the area must contain at least the equivalent of 1 pedestrian amenity for every 200 square feet of hard surface. The use of porous materials for hard surfacing is encouraged. Residential developments are exempt from this subsection. (See Figure 9.2171(5)(e} Landscaped or Paved Pedestrian Area with Pedestrian Amenities.) (fg) The maximum front yard setback may be exceeded if the area between the building and the front property line is landscaped or paved for use by pedestrians. The area must contain at least the equivalent of 1 enhanced pedestrian amenity for every 200 square feet of hard surface. (See Figure 9.2171(5)(e) Landscaped or Paved Pedestrian Area with Pedestrian Amenities.) (11) 09/27/05 @) (d) Adjustments to subsection (b)2. of this sect/on may be made based on criteria in EC 9.8030(2)(d). (15) Drive-Through Facilities. @ (e) Stacking Lanes. Design of stacking lanes shall conform with the requirements of EC [9.6420 ParkinQ Area St::mdardsl 9.6415 Load/no and Drive- Throuah Des/an Standards. Section 5. The lead paragraph of Subsection (10)(c) Of Section 9.2173 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.2173 Commercial Zone Development Standards.. larQe Commercial Facilities. (10) Exterior Wall Articulation, Facades, and Ground Floor Windows. @ (c) Except for building walls with loading docks or fating an alley, ground floor walls shall contain windows (as stated below) at the ground level. The windows may extend a maximum silt height of 4 feet above finished grade to any head height. The portion of window area meeting this standard is from the sill (bottom edge) to the head (top edge) including portions up to 9 feet above the finished grade. Alcoves, entryways, and extruding portions of the wall shall be treated by measuring through such areas as though along the flat wall of a building_ (See Figure 9.2173(10)(c) large Commercial Facilities..(3round Floor Window Calculation.) Solid walls are prohibited along street frontages. This standard does not apply to parking structures. . Section 6. The "Average Width Minimum" heading in Table 9.2180 is amended to provide: 9.2180 Commercial Zone Lot Standards. The following Table 9.2180 sets forth lot standards within commercial zones. The numbers enclosed within (#) indicate a special development standard of EC 9.2181. @ Table 9.2180 Commercial Zoning Lot Standards (See EC 9.2181 Special Standards for Table 9.2180.) C-1 C-2 C--3 C-4 GO [A'Jeragc] Width Minimum (1) Interior Lot Corner Lot 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet Ordinance - 5 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Tempota:ry Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (00108082) 1 O.DOC 09/27/05 Table 9.2180 Commercial Zoning Lot Standards (See EC 9.2181 Special Standards for Table 9.2180.) C-1 C-2 C.3 C-4 GO Curved Lot 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet Cul-de-sac Bulb 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet Flag Lot 40 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Section 7, Table 9.2450 is amended by adding an entry for "Trucking terminal" under the Motor Vehicle Related Uses category, and by amending the entry for "Telecommunication Facility" under the Utilities and Communication category, to provide: @ Motorcycle Sales/Rental/Service P Parking Area not directly related to a primary use on the P P P same development site Recreational Vehicle and Heavy Truck, P P Sales/Rental/Service Repair, includes paint and body shop P P Service Station, includes quick servicing P P --Only permitted if property is located over one-half mile by motor vehicle travel from commercially zoned land. Structured Parking, up to two levels not directly related to a P P P primary use on the same development site Structured Parking, three or more levels not directly related P P P to a primary use on the same development site Tires. Sales/Service P P Transit, Neighborhood Improvement P P P Transit Park and Ride, Major or Minor P P P Transit Station, Major P P P Transit Station. Minor P P P P .~ .-:.... '. .. ........ :"'''' '.'. :.. :".';i,'. ..*'l. ,~ Amateur Radio Antenna Structure (See EC 9.5050) S S Broadcasting Studio. Commercial and PubHc Education P P Electrical Substation, must meet landscape standards in EC P P P 9.6210{3) High Screen Landscape Standard (L-3) unless fully enclosed within a building or approved through a Type II procedure that shows low visual impact. Fiber Optic Station, must meet landscape standards in EC SR P P 9.6210{3} High Screen landscape Standard {l.3} unless fully enclosed within a building or approved through a Type II procedure that shows low visual impact. Ordinance - 6 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (001 08082) 10.DOC @ @ @ 09/27/05 Table 9.2450 Industrial Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements I 1-1 - 1.2 SR P 1.3 P Pump Station, well head, non-elevated reservoir, and other water or sewer facilities, must meet landscape standards in EC 9.6210(3) High Screen Landscape Standard (L~3) unless fully enclosed within a building or approved through a Type II procedure that shows low visual impact. Telecommunication Tower or Facilitv (See EC 9.5750) Water Reservoir, elevated above ground level S SR S SR S SR Section 8. The "Average Width Minimum" heading in Table 9.2470 is amended to provide: 9.2470 Industrial Zone Lot Standards. The following Table 9.2470 sets forth lot standards within industrial zones. The numbers enclosed within (#) indicate a special standard of EC 92471. Table 9.2470 Industrial Zone Lot Standards ~1 I~ 1.3 [Average] Width Minimum (1) Interior Lot Comer Lot Curved Lot Cul-de-sac Bulb AIley Access Flag Lot 50 feet 50 feet 35 feet 35 feet 50 feet 40 feet 50 feet 50 feet 35 feet 35 feet 50 feet 20 feet 50 feet 50 feet 35 feet 35 feet 50 feet 20 feet Section 9. Subsection (2) of Section 9.2683 of the Eugene Coded, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.2683 @ Special 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 wit! 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 11 procedures. Section 10. Subsection (1) of Section 9.2685 of the Eugene Code. 1971. is amended to provide: 9.2685 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2684. (1) The building height for the portion of the building that is located within 50 Ordinance -7 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (00108082) to.DOC 09/27/05 feet of the boundary of an abutting residential zone is limited to the height allowed in [aRJ the abutting residential zoneI 'Nhenlocated within 50 feet of the bound~uy of the residential zone). Section 11. The "Average Width Minimum" heading in Table 9.2686 is amended to provide: 9.2686 Public Land Zone Lot Standards. The following Table 9.2686 sets forth lot standards in the PL public land zone. The numbers in ( ) indicate special development standards contained in EC 9.2687. Table 9.2686 Public Land Zone Lot Standards (See 9.2687 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2686.) @ PL [Avorage] Width Minimum (1) Interior Lot Corner Lot Curved Lot Cul-de-sac Bulb Flag Lot (2) 50 feet 50 feet 35 feet 35 feet ----- --------------- 40 feet Section 1.2. Subsection (3) of Section 9.2741 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by adding a new Subparagraph (d) thereto, to provide: Special Use Limitations for Table 9.2740. (3) Rowhouses. In R-1.5, rowhouses shall comply with all of the following: @ (d) Siting requirements of EC 9.2735. 9.2741 Section 13. Table 9.2760 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 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. Ordinance ~ 8 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK.4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OO108082)lO.DOC @ @ @ 09/27/05 Table 9.2760 Residential Zone Lot Standards (See EC 9.2761 Special Standards for Table 9.2760.) R-1 R-1.5 R-2 R.3 R-4 Lots, except Rowhouse Lots, 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 Small Lots, Duplex Lots, square feet square feet square feet square feet Triplex Lots, Fourplex Lots, Residential Flag Lots, Duplex Division Lots 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 pu~ or PUD Rowhouse Lots (3) 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 (Rowhouse lots shall be square feet square square feet square feet square feet indicated on the final feet subdivision plat and shall be developed with a rowhouse.) Duplex Lots (In R.1, lots shall 8,000 be indicated on the final square feet subdivision plat and {sHaU] may be developed as a duplex or single family dwelling or may be located on comer lots that contain at least 8,000 square feet.} Triplex Lots (In R.1, lots shall 12,000 be indicated on the final square feet subdivision plat and [sRaJ.I.] may be developed as a triplex, duplex, or single family dwelling.) Fourplex Lots (In R-1, lots 16,000 shall be indicated on the final square feet subdivision plat and [sRaJ.I.] may be developed as a fourplex, triplex, duplex, or single family dwelling.) Residential Flag Lot (4) 6,000 6,000 6,000 6.000 (Existing lot shall be at least square feet square feet square feet square feet 13,500 square feet.) Duplex Division Lots (8) 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 (Existing lot shall be at least square feet square feet square feet square feet 8.000 uare feet. Interior Lot 50 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Comer lot 50 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Curved Lot 35 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Cul-de-sac Bulb Lot 35 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Residential Fla 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 foot 15 feet Ordinance - 9 C;\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Mioor Revisions (00108082) lO.DOC 09/27/05 Table 9.2760 Residential Zone Lot Standards @ @ Lot Area Maximum (5) 13,500 2.3 (New subdivisions and partitions square feet ... ~ ,,". " l' '.iII__a~.~~.~ :y.',. .~ . ':',". Duplex See EC 9.2741(4) Triplex See EC 9.2741(5) Four..plex See EC 9.2741(6) (See EC 9.2761 Special Standards for Table 9.2760.) R.1 R-1.5 R-2 R-3 R-4 Interior Lot (7) 50 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Comer Lot 50 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Curved Lot 35 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 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 14. Subsections (5) and (6) of Section 9.2761 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide: 9.2761 Special Standards for Table 9.2760. (5) Exceptions to the maximum lot size shall be granted if any of the following is met: (a) @ @ (6) Existing physical circumstances such as topographically constrained lands, conservation easements, existing buildings, or utitity easements prevent the ability to further divide the lot. (b) The lot exceeding the maximum lot size is intended to reserve a large lot for future land dMsion with feasibility demonstrated by a conceptual buildout plan. (c) The subdivision achieves a minimum density of 9 units per net acre. (d) The exception will enable protection of natural resources. Unless approved through a planned unit development process, in any 1 subdivision in the R-1 zone there shall be a maximum of 25% duplex lots, 15% triplex lots, and 10% fourplex lots permitted. At least 50% of the lots must be for one-family detached dwellings or rowhouses. Fractions are reduced to the next lowest number. Section 15. Subsection (1) and (2)(a) of Section 9.2775 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide: 9.2775 Resident.ial FlaQ Lot Standards for R-1. (1) Purpose. Residential flag lots allow lots to be created in cases where there is adequate lot area to divide the property into 2 or more lots but not enough street frontage to meet the standard minimum requirement and where creation Ordinance - 10 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)10.DOC 09/17/05 (2) ([1) of a street is not necessary to meet connectivity standards. The standards require access for fire protection[ and also require screening to protect the privacy of abutting residences]. The intent is to provide additional housing opportunities and to promote the efficient use of residential land. Home occupations and secondary dwellings are prohibited because of limited access and the greater impacts these uses would place on abutting sites. Measurements. (a) Flag Lot Dimensions. Residential flag lot [average] width dimension is measured from the mid-point between two opposite lot lines of the flag portion of the lot. @ Section 16. Subsection (3)(a) of Section 9.2795 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.2795 Solar Setback Standards. @ (3) Exemptions to Solar Setback Requirements. A building is exempt from the solar setback standards when any of the following conditions exist: (a) Slopes. The lot on which the building is located has an average Slope of 20 percent or more in a direction greater than 45 degrees east or west of true [~] north. Section 17. The "Average Width Minimum" heading in Table 9.3220 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.3220 S..DW Downtown Wests ide Special Area Zone lot Standards. The following Table 9.3220 sets forth lot standards within the S-DW zone. The numbers in ( ) are references to special limitations that are set forth in EC 9.3221. @) Table 9.3220 S..DW Downtown Wests ide Special Area Zone Lot Standards S..DW (A\'orago] Width Minimum Interior Lot (1) Corner Lot (1) Curved Lot (1 ) Alley Access 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Section 18. The "Average Lot Width Minimum" heading in Table 9.3822 of the Eugene Code, 1971. is amended to provide: 9.3822 S..RN Roval Node Special Area Zone lot Standards. The following Table 9.3822 sets forth lot standards within the S-RN zone. The numbers in () are references to special limitations that are set forth in EC 9.3823. Ordinance. 11 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (QOI08082)lO.DOC 09/27/05 (jj) Interior Lot Rowhouse Lot (2) Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex Other Residential Lot Commercial Lot Corner Lot 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 40 feet 40 feet 20 feet 40 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Rowhouse Lot (2) 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex 50 feet 50 feet 20 feet Other Residential Lot 50 feet 120 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Commercial Lot I 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Curved Lot Rowhouse Lot (2) 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Duplex, Triolex, Fourolex 30 feet 30 feet 20 feet Other Residential Lot 30 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Commercial Lot I 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Cul-de..sac Bulb (6H7) Rowhouse Lot ~ 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex . 30 feet, Duplex Only 30 feet 20 feet 20 feet 1 20 feet , 20 feet Other Residential Lot Section 19. The "One Family Dwelling" and "Day Care (3-12 people served)" entries under the Residential category of Table 9.3910 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide: @ P2 Table 9.3910 S-W Whiteaker S eclat Area Zone Uses and Permit R See EC 9.5200 s Section 20. Subsection (3) of Section 9.4730 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.4730 IWP Waterside Protection Overlav Zone Land Use and Permit ReQuirements. Within the NY? overlay zone there are 2 categories of uses: those altowed by the base zone or special area zone outside of the NYP area, and a more restrictive list of uses allowed within the NY? area. Ordinance - 12 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (00 to8082) to.DOC @ @ 09/27/05 (3) Uses Permitted Within IWP Areas Subject to Site Review. Within f\NP areas, the foltowing uses are pennitted, subject to the provisions in EC 9.4740 Prohibited Practices and, except as provided in subsection (f), site review approval based on compliance with EC 9.2530 Natural Resource Zone Development Standards. Where required, site review approval must be secured prior to the application for a development pennit for development within the NIP overlay zone. Uses permitted subject to site review are: (a) Realignment and reconfiguration of channels and pond banks. Subject to EC 9.2530 Natural Resource Zone Development Standards (2), (3), and (5) through (9). (b) Construction of stormwater quality treatment facilities that do not include adding impervious surfaces and that use biofiltration methods, such as shallow grassy swales. constructed wetlands, or ponds. Subject to EC 9.2530 Natural Resource Zone Development Standards (2) though (9). (c) Construction of public improvements (including but not limited to streets, sanitary and stann sewers, bridges, bikeways, pedestrian paths, maintenance access roads and public utilities) required by this land use code or specified in adopted plans. SUbject to EC 9.2530 Natural Resource Zone Development Standards (2) through (10), and (13) through (19). (d) Maintenance of existing utility easements to maintain access and promote safety, and as required by local policies, state and federal regulations. and intergovernmental agreements. Subject to EC 9.2530 Natural Resource Zone Development Standards (2), (3), and (5) through (9). Utility companies shall submit to the city a notice of easement maintenance activities within the NIP area describing the nature and extent of the activities 15 days prior to commencing the activities. (e) Wetland or riparian area enhancement, restoration or creation activities that are consistent with adopted plans and policies, including construction of stormwater quality treatment facilities that use biofiltration methods, such as shallow grassy swales, constructed wetlands, and ponds. SUbject to EC 9.2530 Natural Resource Zone Development Standards (2) through (9). (f) Wetland, stream and riparian enhancement and restoration within the /WP overlay zone shall be exempt from the site review requirements of this subsection (3) if the proposed activity is authorized: 1. Under a Mitigation Improvement Plan approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands, and if required, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; 2. Under a wetland restoration permit or wetland enhancement permit approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands, and if required, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; or 3. Bya "Finding of No Significant Impact" or a '~ecord of Decision" under the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Section 21. Subsection (2)(b) of Section 9.4830 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: Ordinance - 13 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Loca1 Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)10.DOC 9.4830 09/27/05 /WB Wetland Buffer Overlay Zone Land Use and Permit Reauirements. Within the /WB overlay zone, there are 2 categories of uses: those allowed by the base zone or special area zone outside of the !WB area, and a more restrictive list of uses allowed within the /WB area. (2) Within IWB Areas: @ (b) Uses Permitted Subiect to Site Review. The uses listed in this subsection are permitted within areas, subject to the provisions in EC 9.4840 Prohibited Practices, and, except as provided in subparagraph 7., site review approval based on compliance with the EC 9.2530 Natural Resource Zone Development Standards listed with each use. Where required, site review approval shall be secured prior to submission of an application for a development permit for development within the /WB overlay zone. Uses permitted within /WB areas subject to site review are: 1. Wetland or riparian area enhancement, restoration or creation activities that are consistent with adopted plans and policies, including: a. Construction of stormwater quality treatment facilities that do not include adding impervious surfaces, and that use biofiltration methods, such as shallow grassy swales, constructed wetlands, or ponds. Subject to EC 9.2530 Natural Resource Zone Development Standards (2) through (9). b. Impervious surfaces or topographic changes. SUbject to EC 9.2530 Natural Resource Zone Development Standards (2) through (9). 2. Construction of trails and pathways, boardwalks, viewing platforms, interpretive information kiosks and trail signs. Subject to EC 9.2530 Natural Resource Zone Development Standards (2) through (13) and (15) through (18). 3. Restoration and enhancement of natural functions and values that involve displacement, excavation or relocation of more than 50 cubic yards of earth and carries out the objectives of this overlay zone, including realignment and reconfiguration of channels and pond banks, but not including deliberate creation of new wetlands or restoration of former wetlands. Subject to EC 9.2530 Natural Resource Zone Development Standards (2) through (9). 4. Construction of stormwater treatment facilities that use biofiltration methods, such as shallow grassy swales, constructed wetlands, and ponds. Subject to EC 9.2530 Natural Resource Zone , Development Standards (2) through (9). 5. Construction of access roads for maintenance of channels, wetlands and other natural resource areas, Subject to EC 9.2530 Natural Resource Zone Development Standards (2) through (6), (8), (9) and (16). 6. Bikeways and other paved pathways. Subject to EC 9.2530 Natural Resource Zone Development Standards (2), (5), (6), (8), (9), and (15) through (17). 7. Wetland, stream and riparian enhancement and restoration Ordinance - 14 C:\Documents and Settings\ceptsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (00108082) to.DOC to provide: 9.5250 @ 09/17/05 @ within the IWB overlay zone shall be exempt from the site review requirements of this subsection (2)(b) if the proposed activity is authorized: a. Under a Mitigation Improvement Plan approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands, and if required, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; b. Under a wetland restoration permit or wetland enhancement permit approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands, and if required, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; or c. Bya uFinding of No Significant Impact" or a "Record of Decision" under the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Section 22. Subsection (1)(b) of Section 9.5250 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended Farm Animal Standards. All of the following standards are applicable to farm animals: (1) Farm Animals Allowed: (a) Except as provided in subsection (1)(b) below, up to 2 adult rabbits or fowl (no roosters) over 6 months of age are allowed in any residential zone. (b) Rabbits, fowl (no roosters), cows, horses. sheep, goats. emus, and llamas are allowed in AG and R-1. There is no limit on the number of fowl (no roosters) or rabbits over 6 months of age permitted in AG and R-1 provided they are on [l.ets-ef] a development site that contains at least 20,000 square feet and they meet the farm animal standards. Section 23. The lead paragraph of Section 9.5350 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended, and a new Subsection (13) is added thereto, to provide: 9.5350 @ @ Home Occupation Standards. Except for garage sales lasting no more than 3 consecutive days no more than 3 times in a year, and day care facilities, which are exempt, home occupations [in all residential zones] shall be subject to the following standards: (13) A home occupation shall not be permitted;n a dwelling located on a flag lot. Section 24. Subsections (8}(a), (9)(a)5., and (9)(c)2. of Section 9.5500 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide: 9.5500 Multiple-FamilY Standards. Ordinance ~ 15 C:\Docurnents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOI08082)1O.DOC f3~) ~;;/ @ 09/27/05 (8) Site Landscaping. (a) Minimum Landscape Area. Landscaping is required according to the applicable base zone minimum landscape area standards. if there are none specified, the minimum landscape area shalt be [the percentage of the area not permitted as part of the lot coverage] equal to the amount of area required as open space specified in EC 9.5500(9). 1. Any required landscaping, such as for required front and interior yard setbacks and to comply with parking landscape standards, shall apply toward the development site area landscaping requirements. 2. Common open space areas required under EC 9.5500(9} Open Space also apply toward meeting the minimum landscaped area requirements of this section. if they are uncovered. 3. Any portion of a private, ground level open space area exceeding one hundred square feet shat! be counted toward the minimum landscape area requirement. (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. (a) Common open space may include any of the following: 5. The minimum dimension for any common outdoor open space shall be [2(;)] 15 feet. {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 parle 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 [2Q] 15 feet or greater. Section 25. Subsections (6)(a)10. and (6)(b)11. of Section 9.5750 of the Eugene Code, 1971. are amended to provide: 9.5750 Telecommunication Devices-Sitina Reauirements and Procedures. (6) Application Requirements. (a) Collocation of Antennas. In addition to standard required application material, an applicant for collocation of antennas shall submit the following information; additional application material is required, as specified in paragraph (c) below, for applications requiring a site review or conditional use process. 10. Documents demonstrating that the FAA has reviewed and Ordinance - 16 C:\I)ocuments and Settings\ceplsan\LQcal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (001 08082) 1O.DOC 09/27/05 (b) approved the proposal, and the Oregon [Aeronoutics Division] Department of Aviation has reviewed the proposal. Alternatively, when a site review or conditional use process is required, submit a statement documenting that notice of the proposal has been submitted to the FAA and Oregon [Aeronautics Division] Department of Aviation. The site review or conditional use process may proceed and approval may be granted for the proposal as submitted, subject to FAA approval. If FAA approval requires any changes to the proposal as initially approved, then that initial approval shall be void. A new application will need to be submitted, reviewed and approved through an additional site review or conditional use process. No development permit application shall be submitted without documents demonstrating FAA review and approval and Oregon [Aeronautics Division] Department of Aviation review. Construction of Transmission Tower. In addition to standard required application material, an applicant for a transmission tower shall submit the following information; additional application material is required, as specified in paragraph (c) below, for applications requiring a site review or conditional use process: @ @ 11. Documents demonstrating that the FAA has reviewed and approved the proposal, and Oregon [Aeronautics Division] Department of Aviation has reviewed the proposal. Alternatively, when a site review or conditional use process is required, submit a statement documenting that notice of the proposal has been submitted to the FAA and Oregon [A.eronautics Division] Department of Aviation. The site review or conditional use process may proceed and approval may be granted for the proposal as submitted, subject to FAA approval. If FAA approval requires any changes to the proposal as initially approved, then that initial approval shall be void. A new application will need to be submitted, reviewed and approved through an additional site review or conditional use process. No development permit application shalt be submitted without documents demonstrating FAA review and approval and Oregon [/\eron:lutics Division] Department of Aviation review. Section 26. Subsections (4}(c) and (5}{b) of Section 9.5800 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide: 9.5800 Temporary Activitv Special Development Standards. (4) General Standards. All temporary activities are subject to the applicable standards listed below: @ (c) All signs associated with the temporary activity must be located on the site of the temporary activity, may not be placed in the public right of way or vision clearance area, and must be removed when the activity ends. Ordinance . 17 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOI08082)10.DOC Ballet, Dance, Martial Arts. and G~nastic School! Academy/Studio I ! I @hLibrary1pereaCh5ooSqUarefeetoffloOr25%IOngterm .;) u area. 75% short term Office Equipment and Supplies 1 per each 3000 square feet of floor 25% long term area. 75% short term I @ @ 09/27/05 (5) Zone Category and Duration. (b) The standards for temporary activities in areas in the broad zone category of commercial, industrial, or special (except S-H zones) are as follows: 1. Parking Lot Sales. Parking lot sales in zones where outdoor merchandise display is not otherwise permitted are allowed for up to 2 consecutive weeks [at any 1 time] on 3 different occasions during a calendar year. 2. Fairs and Carnivals. Fairs and carnivals are allowed for up to 2 consecutive weeks [at any 1 time] on 3 different occasions during a calendar year. @ Section 27. The entries for "Ballet, Dance, and Gymnastic School/Academy/Studio" and "Library" under the Education, Cultural, Religious, Social and Fraternal category of Table 9.6105(4) of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended, and an entry for "Office Equipment and Supplies" is added in alphabetical order under the Trade (Retail and Wholesale) category, to provide: 9.6105 Bicvcle Parkina Standards. (4) Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces. The minimum required number of bicycle parking spaces shall be calculated according to Table 9.6105(4) Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces. Uses Table 9.6105(4) Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces Required Bicycle Parking (Minimum 4 bicycle spaces required unless ..()~ is indicated. Type and % of Bicycle Parkin 1 per each 400 square feet of floor area. 25% long term 75% short term Ordinance. 18 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\OS Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OO108082)lO.DOC 09/27/05 Section 23. Section 9.6410 of the Eugene Code. 1971, is amended by adding a new subsection (d) to Subsection (3); amending the "Ballet, Dance and Gymnastics School/ Academy/Studio" entry under the Education, Cultural, Religious, Social and Fraternal category; and amending the "Wholesale Trade" entry of the "Trade" category in Table 9.6410 to provide: 9.6410 Motor Vehicle ParkinQ Standards. (3) Minimum Number of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces. Except as provided in this section, or in an adjustment pursuant to EC 9.8030(10) Motor Vehicle Parking and Loading Standards Adjustment, the minimum number of required off~street parking spaces shall be catculated as provided in Table 9.6410 Required Off-Street Motor Vehicle Parking. w (d) When calculating the parking requirements for an outdoor restaurant, up to 20 outdoor seats shall be exempt from the calculations. Table 9.6410 Required Off..Street Motor Vehicle Parking Uses Minimum Number of Required Off-Street Parkin S. aces @) 1 per each 80 square feet of dance area. Ballet, Martial Arts, Dance and Gymnastics School! Academy/Studio rif2' Wholesale Trade (excluding regional distribution 1 per each [500] 1650 square feet of floor ~ center) area. I I Section 29. Subsections (3)(e) and (3)(f)1 of Section 9.6420 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide: 9.6420 ParkinQ Area Standards. (3) Landscape Standards. (e) Interior Parking Area Landscaping. [~l In addition to the landscaping required in subsections (c) and (d), landscaping that meets the 70% landscape coverage requirement consistent with L..2 standards (See Figure 9.6420(3)(e)3. Parking Area Interior Planting Islands) shall be provided within the interior of surface parking areas for 50 or more motor vehicles so as to[.;.ari] improve the visual qualities of these areas,[.,..b.. @ Ordinance - 19 C;\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)1O.DOC 09/27/05 Q.]delineate and define circulation movements of motorists and pedestrians,[~]improve air quality, and[.,.4,..€]encourage energy conservation by moderating parking area microclimates. 1. Parking area landscaping shall be provided according to Table 9.6420(3)(e){&-] Interior Parking Area Landscaping. Table 9.6420(3){e) Interior Parking Area Landscaping Total Number of Spaces in Minimum Interior Parking Area Parking Area Landscape Area 50 to 99 spaces 15 s uare feet per .. arkin s ace 100 or more spaces 22 square feet per parkin space @ 2. A continuous landscape strip or raised pedestrian path shall be provided between every 4 rows of parking. The landscape strip or pedestrian path shall be a minimum of 7 feet in width, measured from the outside edge of a 6 inch wide curb. (See Figure 9.6420(3)(e)2.lnterior Parking Area Landscaping.) 3. Planting islands shall be provided at the ends of each parking row and at intervals within parking rows so that no parking stall is more than 45 feet from a planting island. Planting islands shall be at least 7 feet in width, as measured from the outside edge of a 6 inch wide curb. and a minimum area of 140 square feet. Each of these islands shall provide at least 1 canopy tree. (See Figure 9.6420(3){e)3. Parking Area Interior Planting Islands.) (f) Structured Parking. 1. Along the perimeter of the non-commercial portion of structured parking, a landscape strip, a minimum of 5 feet in width, shall be provided between the property line and the structure wall. Perimeter landscaping along interior yards is exempt from this requirement, if the proposed structure will be less than 15' from an existing structure measured across the common interior property line. This standard does not apply to property lines abutting an aUey. Section 30. The entries for "Mall Vending" and "Signs During Elections" in Subsection (1), of Section 9.6610 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide: 9.6610 Exemptions to Sign Standards. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the following signs are exempt from the requirements of EC 9.6600 through 9.6680, and are exempt from the requirement to obtain a sign permit: @ [MaUl Vendino in Downtown Activity Area. Signs, including portable signs, for [maUl Downtown Activity permits issued per private commerce on publiC property (Administrative Rule R-3.336). Signs During Elections. Signs 12 square feet or less in area, located on Ordinance - 20 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OO108082)lO.DOC @ 09/27/05 private property during the period from 60 days before to 5 days after any public election to be held in Lane County, Oregon. Section 31. Subsection (7), of Section 9.6615 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.6615 @ Prohibited Sians. Except where qualified as a nonconforming sign, the following signs are unlawful and are declared to be nuisances: (7) Portable signs, except as authorized by a permit within the Downtown Activity Zone and warning signs as permitted by EC 9.6605 Reconciliation; Section 32. Subsection (1), of Section 9.6630 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.6630 @ to proVide: 9.6640 @ to provide: 9.6650 Permit APplication. (1) An application and related information shall be submitted by the applicant, in a manner prescribed by the city, together with a fee established by the city manager as provided by EC 2.020 CitvManaQer - Authority to Set Fees and Charges. When a person begins construction of a sign requiring a sign permit before [S\:;IGR a] the permit is [approved] issued, the permit fee shall be doubled. Payment of a double permit fee shall not otherwise exempt the person from liability for other penalties prescribed for a violation of the sign standards. Section 33. Subsection (4 )(d), of Section 9.6640 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended General Provisions. (4) Location Standards. (d) Vision Clearance. Signs must comply with vision standards [wRere vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian. travel intersect] as specified in EC 9.6780 Vision Clearance Area. (See also EC 9.6255 Vision Clearance Area LandscapinQ.) Section 34. Subsection (3}(c), of Section 9.6650 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended Residential Sign Standards. The residential sign standards are hereby created and applied to an land zoned as set forth below. Signage is limited to preserve the Ordinance - 21 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)lO.DOC 09/27/05 character of the area by allowing signs only for residential purposes and for non- residential uses allowed in the applicable zone. (3) Maximum Number of Signs. The number of signs residential sign standards allow is based on the number of street frontages and is limited to no more than the following amounts for each street frontage: @ (c) One permanent subdivision or planned unit development sign for each development site used or planned as a subdivision or planned unit development, and one permanent manufactured dwelling park sign for each manufactured dwelling park. Section 35. Subsection (6)(b) of Section 9.6670 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.6670 Central Commercial Sian Standards. The central commercial sign standards are hereby created and applied to all property within the central commercial zones as set forth below. Signs are restricted in recognition of the high density usage of these areas, where pedestrian traffic is heavy and vehicular traffic is commonly limited. (6) Special Provisions. The following signs are subject to special provisions: @ (b) Awnings, marquees and projecting signs may project over public rights- of-way. The city shaH have the right to [. and shall] require a revocable permit under Chapter 7 of this code, unless the projections are required by EC 9.4085(7). 1. Awnings and marquees may project a maximum of 7 feet into the public right-of-way. 2. Projecting signs may project a maximum of 4.5 feet into the public right-of-way. 3. No sign may project into a public right-of-way to a point within 2 feet of the vertical plane of any street (curb face), alley or driveway. 4. No sign may project into an alley clearance area. The "alley clearance area" is the area formed by a line drawn from the intersecting point of a sidewalk or other public way and a pUblic alley at an angle of 30 degrees from the projection of the boundary of the alley into the intersecting public way. (See Figure 9.6670(6)(b) Projecting Sign Area.) 5. No sign may project from a building at the corner of 2 streets more than 1 foot for every 5 feet of distance from the point where the building wall on which the sign is attached would intersect the curb if that wall extended to the curb. (See Figure 9.6670(6)(b) Projecting Sign Area.) Ordinance - 22 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOlO8082)1O.DOC 09/27/05 Section 36. Section 9.6709 of the Eugene Code. 1971, is amended by adding a new paragraph (f) to Subsection (1), amending Subsection (2)(a)1., and adding a new Subsection c. to Subsection (2)(e), to provide: 9.6709 @ Special Flood Hazard Areas.. Standards. (1) General Standards. In all areas of special flood hazards, compliance with the following standards is required: (f) Recreational Vehicles. Recreational vehicles placed on sites will either: 1. Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days, or 2. Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, on its wheels or jacking system, attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and have no permanently attached additions. (2) Specific Standards. In all areas of special flood hazards where base flood elevation data has been provided as required in subsections 9.6707(1) or (2), the following provisions are required: (a) Residential Construction. 1. New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to [Gf] a minimum of one foot above the base flood elevation. (e) Shallow Flooding Areas - WithDepth Designations. Shallow flooding zones appear on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). with depth designations, wherever such flooding occurs on sloping water surfaces such as alluvial fan flow, wave wash after the wave has broken, etc. In these areas, the following provisions apply: 2. New construction and substantial improvements of nonresidential structures within these zones shall either: a. Have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade of the building site to at least one foot above the depth number speCified on the FIRM; or b. Together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, be completely flood proofed to at least one foot above that level so that any space below that level is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. If this method is used, compliance shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect. c. Adequate drainage paths shall be provided around structures on slopes to guide floodwaters around and away from proposed structures. Ordinance. 23 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions {OOl08082)10.DOC 09/27/05 Where hazardous velocities are noted on the FIRM, consideration shall be given to mitigating the effects of these velocities through proper construction techniques and methods. Section 37. Section 9.6730 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by adding a Subsection (4) thereto, to provide: 9.6730 Pedestrian Circulation On-5ite. @ (4) Adjustment. These standards may be adjusted if consistent with the criteria of EC 9.8030(22). Section 38. Subsection (3)(b) and (3)(c) of Section 9.6745 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide: 9.6745 Setbacks-Intrusions Permitted. (3) @ @ Projecting Building Features. (a) One StOry Structures. The following building features may project into the required front yard setback no more than 5 feet and into the required interior yard setback no more than 2 feet; provided, that such projections are at least 8 feet from any building on an adjacent lot: 1. Eaves, cornices, belt courses, sills, awnings, buttresses or other similar features. 2. Chimneys, fireplaces, and bay windows, provided they do not exceed 8 feet in width. 3. Porches, platforms or landings with roofs which do not extend above the level of the first floor of the building. (b) Multiple StOry Structures (2 or more floors). For multiple-story buildings, portions of buildings that may project into required front yard setbacks no more than 5 feet and into the required interior yard setback no more than 2 feetx provided such projections are at feast 8 feet from any building on an adjacent lot, include: 1. Eaves, cornices, belt courses, sills, awnings, buttresses or other similar features. 2. Chimneyshl and fireplaces, [:md bay 'NindO'...,s,] provided they do not exceed 8 feet in width. 3. Open porches no deeper than 10 feet and no higher than 15 feet may project into required yards that abut streets. 4. Bays no greater than 3 feet deep and 10 feet long and no higher than 25 feet may project into required yards that abut streets. The maximum frequency of such bays is one bay per 15 feet of building street frontage. 5. Balconies with a maximum depth of 10 feet are permitted to project into required yards that abut streets. 6. Bay windows cantilevered from the first floor, provided they do not exceed 8 feet in width. Ordinance - 24 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOI08082)1O.DOC @t:::'C:'?) """.;';11< I .,.e' vn>^'''' 9.6805 @ 09/17/05 (c) Signs conforming to all other applicable provisions of this code. Freestanding signs 5 feet high or less are allowed in the [30 foot] front yard setback [in the I 1 zone] when located at least 5 feet from the front property line. Section 39. Section 9.6805 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: Dedication of Public Ways. As a condition of any development, the city may require dedication of public ways for bicycle and/or pedestrian use as well as for streets and alleys, provided the city makes findings to demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. [~lPublic ways for pedestrian and bicycle access ways, streets and alleys to be dedicated to the public by the applicant shall conform with the adopted Street Right of way Map, and EC Table R6870. {Public ways f.or bicycle and pedestrian use to be dedicated to the public by the applicant shall be at least 20 feet in width.] Section 40. The first paragraph of Section 9.6810 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended, and a new Subsection (4) is added thereto, to provide: 9.6810 @ provide: 9.6815 Block Length. Block length for local streets shall not exceed 600 feet, unless [tAe developer demonstrates that a block length ml:lst be greater: than 600 feet because of the existence of] an exception Is granted based on one or more of the following [conditions]: (4) As part of a Type II or Type III process, the developer demonstrates that the resulting street network will not create excessive trave/lengths and will accommodate necessary emergency access. Section 41. Subsection (2) of Section 9.6815 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to Connectivity for Streets. (2) Street Connectivity Standards. (a) AU streets and alleys shalt be public unless the developer demonstrates that a public street or alley is not necessary for compliance with this land use code or the street connectivity standards of subparagraphs (b) [te4e}J through (f) of this subsection. (b) The proposed development shall include street connections in the direction of all existing or planned streets within 1/4 mile of the development site. The proposed development shall also include street connections to any streets that abut, are adjacent to, or terminate at the development site. [Secondary access for fiFe and emergency medisal vehicles is required.] (c) The proposed development shall include streets that extend to undeveloped or partially developed land that is adjacent to the Ordinance - 25 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\OS Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (00108082) 1 O.DOC @ @ @ 09/27/05 development site or that is separated from the development site by a drainage channel, transmission easement, survey gap, or similar property condition. The streets shall be in locations that will enable adjoining properties to connect to the proposed development's street system. (el) Secondary access for fire and emergency medical vehicles consistent with EC 9.6870 is required. (de) Except for applications proposing needed housing, all applicants shall show that the proposed street alignment shall minimize excavation and embankment and avoid impacts to natural resources, including water- related features. (sf) In cases where a required street connection would result in the extension of an existing street that Is not improved to city standards and the street has an inadequate driving surface, the developer shall construct a temporary barrier at the entrance to the unimproved street section with provision for bicycle, pedestrian, and emergency vehicle access. The barrier shall be removed by the city at the time the existing street is improved to city standards or to an acceptable standard adopted by the public works director. In making a determination of-an inadequate driving surface. the pUblic works director shall consider the street rating according to Eugene's Paving Management System and the anticipated traffic volume. (fg) In the context of a Type II or Type IJIland use decision, the city shall grant an exception to [+}the standards in {tRi&] subsections (2)(b), (c) or (d) [may be adjusted if consistent 'Nith the criteria of EC 9.8030(12)(8) of this land use code,] if the applicant demonstrates that any proposed exceptions are consistent with either subsection 1. or 2. below: 1. The applicant has provided to the city, at his or her expense, a local street connection study that demonstrates: a. That the proposed street system meets the intent of street connectivity provisions of this land use code as expressed in EC 9.6815(1); and b. How undeveloped or partially developed properties within a quarter mile can be adequately served by alternative street layouts. 2. The applicant demonstrates that a connection cannot be made because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions: a. Physical conditions preclude development of the connecting street. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, topography or likely impact to natural resource areas such as wetlands, ponds, streams, channels, rivers, lakes or upland wildlife habitat area, or a resource on the National Wetland Inventory or under protection by state or federal law. b. Buildings or other existing development on adjacent lands, including previously subdivided but vacant lots or parcels, physically preclude a connection now or in the future, considering the potential for redevelopment. Ordinance - 26 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions {OOl08082)10.DOC 9.6820 @ provide: 09/27/05 Section 42. Section 9.6820 of the Eugene Code, 1971. is amended to provide: Cul-de-Sacs or Emergencv Vehicle Turnarounds. (1) Except for streets that are less than 150 feet long and streets that will be extended in the future, aU streets that terminate shail be designed as a cul.de- sac bulb or an emergency vehicle turnaround. (2) If a street [qualifies for an exception under section (1) because it] will be extended in the future, a temporary easement shall be provided and an emergency vehicle turnaround shall be constructed[ in an alternative location]. (3) [If a street Qualifies foran exception under seGtion (1), a hammerhead turnaround shall bo substituted '!/here possible. (4) There shall be no cui de sacs more than 100 feet long from the centerline of the intersecting street to theradius~oint of the cui de sac bulb. (5) The planning director shall requiFe p]Public accessways to provide safe circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists and emergency vehicles may be required from a cul-de-sac or emergency vehicle turnaround longer than 150' in length when['l measured from the centerline of the intersecting street to the radius point of the cul-de-sac or to the center point of the emergency vehicle turnaround{ to providesafe,oonvenient, and direct circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists, and emergency vehiotes]. (64) As part of a Type /I or Type III process, an exception {adjustment] may be granted to the requirements of (1) and (43) of this section if [consistent with the Gf"iteFia for acijustment crEe 9.8030(12)(b) oHhis land use code] because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions: (a) Physical conditions preclude development of the connecting street. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, topography or likely impact to natural resource areas such as wetlands, ponds, streams, channels, rivers, lakes or upland wildlife habitat area, or a resource on the National Wetland Inventory or under protection by state or federal law. (b) Buildings or other existing development on the subject property or adjacent landsT including previously subdivided but vacant lots or parcels, physically preclude a connection now or in the future, considering the potential for redevelopment. Section 43. Subsection (2) of Section 9.6830 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to 9.6830 Intersections of Streets and Alleys. (2) Offsets. The minimum intersection offset shall be 100 feet on a local street, 200 feet on a collector street, and 400 feet on an arterial street unless adjusted through the process for adjustments to standards of EC 9.8030(12)[~]. Offsets shall be measured from the center lines of the two intersecting streets. Ordinance- 27 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (00108082) 1 O.DOC 09/27/05 Section 44. Section 9.6870 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide 9.6870 Street Width. Unless an alternative width is approved through use of other procedures in this code, the right-of-way width and paving width of streets and alleys dedicated shall conform to those designated on the adopted Street Right-of- Way map. When a street segment right-of-way width is not designated on the Street Right-of-Way map, the required street width shalt be the maximum shown for its type in Table 9.6870 Right-ot-Way and Paving Widths unless a lesser width is approved by the planning director and pUblic works director based on adopted plans and policies, adopted "Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Accessways," or other factors which, in the judgment of the planning and public works director allow for a lesser street width. @ Major Arterials Minor Arterials Major Collector Neighborhood Collector Bicycle and Pedestrian Accessway: With Fire Accessibility Without Fire Accessibility Local Streets Alley (secondary access) only Alley (primary access) Table 9.6870 Right..of-Way and Paving Widths Type of Street or Alley Right-of-Way ^ (for Public Streets and Alleys only) 100' -120' 65' -100' 60' -75' 40' 55' Paving Width 68' - 94' 46'70' 32' -44' 20' - 43' 20' 10' 20' 10' 14' 20' [44-112' 12' one-way travel 20' two-way travel 21'-28' ' 20' - 28' 20' - 34' 30' - 44' @> Access Lane Low Volume Residential Medium Volume Residential Commercial and Industrial Cul-de.-sac Bulb Radius: . Residential Non-residential I '"Measured from face to face of curbs 40' - 55' 45' - 55' 50' - 60' 55' - 70' [4+] 48.5" 62' 35' 50' (1) Slope Easements. Because of terrain, slope easements may be required to facilitate the construction ot streets and alleys and protect the structural integrity of the constructed roadway. Slope easements (these] shall be granted in addition to the required street or alley width fisted in Table 9.6870 Right-of-Way and Paving Widths. (2) Construction Standards. AU streets and alleys shall be designed and constructed according to adopted council policy and standards and specifications adopted pursuant to Chapter 7 of this code. Section 45. The lead paragraph of Subsection (2) of Section 9.6885 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal Standards. Ordinance - 28 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (00108082) lO.DOC @ 9.7015 @ 9.7020 @ 09/27/05 (2) Tree Preservation and Removal Standards. No permit for a development activity subject to this section shall be approved until the applicant submits plans or information, including a written report by a certified arborist or licensed landscape architect, that demonstrates compliance with the following standards: Section 46. Section 9.7015 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: Application Completeness Review. The city shall review an application and, within 30 days of its receipt, notify the applicant as to whether the application is complete. If the city determines that the application contains sufficient information for review, the city shall advise the applicant in writing that the application is deemed complete and begin the application review process. If the city determines that the application is incomplete, the city shall advise the applicant in writing of the necessary missing information. [VVlthin 10 days of the mailing of:1 notice of missing information. the applicant shall submit to tRe city a v:ritten st:1tement indicating either on intent to submit the missing information or a refusal to submit the missing information.] The city shall begin review of the application either: (1) Upon receipt of all of the missing information requested by the city; or (2) Upon receipt of some of the missing information and a written statement from the applicant indicating that none of the other missing information will [flat] be provided; or (3) Upon [tJ:le-4411l day after mailing the notice of missing information referred to above, if the applic<:mt has not responded] receipt of a written statement from the applicant indicating that none of the missing information will be provided. On the 181st day after being first submitted, the application will be void if the applicant has been notified of the missing information and has not compfied with (1), (2), or (3) of.this section. Section 47. Section 9.7020 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: rwal\'er tel Extension of lime Limit Restrictions. Upon the written request of L+lthe applicant [may] submitted to the planning director.. [a statement 'Nai\'ing] any applicable time limits may be extended for a specified period of time, but in no case may the total of all extensions exceed 245 days. Section 48. The entries for "Vacations" in table 9.7055 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide: Table 9.7055 Applications and Review Authorities R :;: Recommendation, 0 :;: Decision Maker, A:;: Appeal Review Authority Application Type Planning Hearings Historic Planning City Director Official Review Commission Council Board Ordinance - 29 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\OS Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)10.DOC 09/27/05 Table 9.7055 AppUcations and Review Authorities R = Recommendation, 0 = Decision Maker, A = Appeal Review Authority . Application Type Planning Hearings Historic Planning City Director Official Review Commission Council Board @ Vacations: . Unimproved Easement . Undeveloped Plat - Unimproved Public Right. of-way, Improved public Easements - Vacation and Re. dedication of Unimproved Public Right-of-way . Vacation of Improved Public Right-of-way, and vacation of any pubic way acquired with public funds I fW} II o o D A II o A W1 D Section 49. Section 9.7110 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.7110 @ Decision. Within 30 days of the city's determination that an application is complete, unless the applicant agrees to a longer time period, the planning director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application based on findings and conclusions according to the requirements and criteria found in EC 9.8000 through 9.8865. The decision of the planning director is final. Section 50. Table 9.7405 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to delete the entry for "Vacation." Table 9.7405 Type IV Application Requirements and Criteria Type tV Applications Beginning Reference Refinement Plan Amendment, Site Specific Change EC9.8421 Street Name Change EC 9.8475 (Vacation of Improved Public Right of way, vacation of public right of.way EC 9.1:1700] acquired '+'lith public funds. and 'i8cation of unde'.'eloped subdivision and p3rtltion plats. including public right of way and improved public easements located therein Zone Changes Processed Concurrent with a site specific Refinement Plan EC 9.8850 amendment* @ *A zone change to apply the INO overlay zone shall be processed according to EC 9.4260. Section 51. Subsection (2) of Section 9.7605 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: Ordinance - 30 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (00108082) 10.DOC 9.7605 ckft) provide: 9.7655 @ 09/27/05 FUina of APpeal of Planninq Director's Decision. (2) The appeal shall be submitted on a form approved by the city manager, [aM] be accompanied by a fee established pursuant to EC Chapter 2, and be received by the city no later than 5:00 p.m. of the 1rh day after the notice of decision is mailed. The record from the planning director's proceeding shall be forwarded to the appeal review authority. New evidence pertaining to appeal issues shall be accepted. Section 52. Subsection (2) of Section 9.7655 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to Filinq of APl?ealof Hearinas Official or Historic Review Board Initial Decision. (2) The appeal shall be submitted on a form approved by the city manager, [aM] be accompanied by a fee established pursuant to EC Chapter 2, and be received by the city no later than 5:00 p.m. of the 1 th day after the notice of decision is mailed. The record from the proceeding of the hearings official or historic review board shall be forwarded to the appeal review authority. No new evidence pertaining to appeal issues shall be accepted. Section 53. Industrial Corridor Map 9.7805 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended and replaced by the Industrial Corridor Map 9.7805 attached hereto Section 54. The lead paragraph of Section 9.7885 of the Eugene Code, 1971. is amended to provide: 9.7885 @ provide: Annexation Procedures for the "Industrial Corridor". Annexation applications for property in the "Industrial Corridor" may be processed according to the procedures in this section if the special provisions requiring action by the city council are applicable. The "Industrial Corridor" is a triangular-shaped area [that is bounded on the '/.'est by the~ Ekm. urban gro'llth boundary as of l\pril1g91, on the east by the NorUvNest Expressway, on the north by Awbrey Lane, and on the south by Eugene's cit.y limits as of ,!\priI1, 1991 This area is affected by]. particularly described in Exhibit A to the Annexation and Urban Services Policy Agreement dated April 25, 1991. See Map 9.7805 Industrial Corridor. Section 55. Table 9.8010 of Section 9.8010 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to Ordinance - 31 C:\Documentsand Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (00108082)lO.DOC 09/27/05 9.8010 List of Adopted Plans. The documents listed in the following Table 9.8010, including any adopted amendments, are the currently effective adopted plans that may be applicable to a particular land use application. The plans and adopted policies are more particularly set forth beginning at EC 9.9500, and the boundaries for each are depicted on Map 9.8010 Adopted Plans. Table 9.8010 Listof Adopted Plans River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan- [4W+] Riverfront Park Study-[-WOO] South Hills Study-[W+4] Bethel.Danebo Refinement Plan (Phase II}- [~ Bethel-Oanebo Refinement Plan......[-1-982-J Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan- [4W4} Eugene Commercial Lands Study-[~] Eugene Downtown Plan-[-1-QM.] Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan-[49$9] Eugene--Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) . FairmountlU of 0 Special Area Study - [~] Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan - [~] Laurel Hill Neighborhood Plan .... [~] 19m and Agate Special Area Study - [~~ Resolution No. 3862 Adopting the West 11 n Commercial Land Use Policy and Refining the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Adopted June 13. 1984) South Willamette Subarea Study-(4Q.88] TransPlan (Metro Area Transportation Plan}- [~] West Eugene Wetlands Plan-(~] West University Refinement Plan-[4-Q.82] @ Westside Neighborhood Plan-[-1OO+] Whiteaker Plan-[4-Q94] Willakenzie Area Plan - [~l Willow Creek Special Area Study-[~] Resolution No. 3885 Establishing Areas for the Application of C-4 CommerciaHndustrial District Zoning, and Amending Resolution No. 3862 (Adopted on November 13, 1984) Section 56. Subsection (2) of Section 9.8030 of the Eugene Code, 1971 is amended by adding a new Subsection (d) thereto; Subsection (10}{a) is amended, Subsection (12) is amended, and a new Subsection (22) is added thereto, to provide: 9.8030 Adjustment Review" Approval Criteria. The planning director shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny an adjustment review application. Approval or conditional approval shall be based on compliance with the following applicable criteria. @ (2) Setback Standards Adjustment. Where this land use code provides that the setback standards applicable to specific zones may be adjusted, the standards may be adjusted upon finding that the proposed setback is consistent with the following applicable criteria: (d) Outdoor Merchandise O/solay in C..2 and C-4. The limitation on outdoor merchandise display in EC 9.2171(11)(b)2. may be adjusted upon a finding that the proposed adjustment is consistent with the intent set out in EC 9.2170(1). (i0) Motor Vehicle Parking and Loading Standards Adjustment. Where this land use code provides that the motor vehicle parking standards may be Ordinance.. 32 C:\Documents and Sertings\cep1san\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK4F\OS Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)lO.DOC @ @ (12) @ 09/27/05 adjusted, the standards may be adjusted upon finding the applicable corresponding criteria are met. (a) Number of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces. Adjustments may be made to the required number of off*street parking space provisions of EC 9.6410 based on the following criteria: 1. The minimum required off-street parking spaces may be reduced by up to 50 percent when the applicant for a development can demonstrate, in a parking-traffic study prepared by a traffic engineer, that both of the following conditions exist: a. The use of alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycles, and walking, and/or special characteristics of the customer, client, employee or resident population will reduce expected vehicle use and parking space demand for this development, as compared to standard Institute of Transportation I;:ngineers vehicle trip generation rates and minimum city parking requirements. b. A proposed Transportation Demand Management (TOM) Program has been approved by the city that contains strategies for reducing vehicle use and park.ing demand generated by the development and establishes benchmarks by which the program's effectiveness will be measured annually. The city may waive the preparation of a TDM plan if the requirement set forth in EC 9.8030(10(a)1.a. can otherwise be satisfied. 2. In the case of an existing use proposing to provide a transit stop and related amenities such as a public plaza, pedestrian sitting areas, transit-supportive development, and additional landscaping, the number of required off-street parking spaces may be reduced by up to 10 percent. 3. Except within a ITD overlay zone, an adjustment that approves installation up to 150 percent of the minimum spaces req uired by EC 9.6410(3) Minimum Number of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces may be allowed, if all of the following are met a. Additional parking is necessary to meet the parking demand. for a specific use. b. Shared use of parking is not available or adequate to meet the demand. c. At least 60 percent of the parking lot is allocated and striped for compact cars. d. An employee-based Transportation Demand Management Program has been approved by the city, and annual reports thereon are subsequently provided to the city. [Str:eets, Alleys, and QtheF PubliG Way] Intersections of Streets and Alleys Standards Adjustment. [As set out below, specific standards set forth in EC 9.6815 through 9.6830 pertaining to streets may be adjusted if the oorresponding criteria are met. {at Str:eet COAAeGtivitv Standards. As an alternative to compliance '.'lith the standards of tEe 9.6815(2) Street Connectivity Standards (0) (d), the appficant.may, at his or her expense, provide to the city a tocal street connection study that demonstrates hO'N the proposed street system Ordinance - 33 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (00108082) to.DOC 09/27/05 @ meets the intent of street connectivity provisions of this land use code as expressed in EC 9.6815(1), ~lnd haw undeveloped or partially develoJ:}ed properties within 3 Quarter mlle Ganbe ade€luatelyserved by olternati'le street layouts. . ApprO\l'al ef the street connection study by the city shall constitute an adjustment to the st3ndards of EC 9.6815(2). The requirements of subparagraphs (b) and (0) may be adjusted if it is demonstr<3ted that a connection cannot be made because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions: 1. Physical oonditions preclude development of the connecting street. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, topography or likely impaot to natural resource areas such as 'Netlands, ponds, streams, channels, rivers, lakes or upland wildlife habitat area, or a resource on the t-btional Wetland Inventory or under protection by stote or feder~lIlaw 2. Buildings or other existing development on adjacent lands, including previously subdivided but vacant lots or parcels, physically preclude a connection now or in the future, considering the potential for redevelopment.] [(b) Cui do Socs. 1. ^nadJustment to the requirement of EC 9.6820(1) may be granted if it is shown that topographic constraints, existing development, or natural features prevent the construction of a ~ 2. The limitation of a 100 foot maximum length for:3 cui de sac in EC 9.6820(4} may be adjusted if all of the follo'....ing oonditions exist; a. The physical shape of tho property prevents alternative developmentpattems.and there are no practicol alternative street layollts available that w.oufd meet street connectivity. b. The physieal GOAditioRS of the property preGlllde the ability to achieve the density permitted according to the zoning of the property with a cui do sacot only 400 feet. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, topography. or the existence of natural resource areas such as wetlands, ponds, streams, channels, rivers, lakes or upland wildlife habitat area, or a resource on the National Wetland Inventory or under protection by state or federal taw. (c) ,.m~fE>~c;:!i9nStandards.] The minimum offset intersection requirements set forth in EC 9.6830 may be adjusted if the proposed adjustment is necessary and is designed so that no offset dangerous to the traveling public is created as a result of staggering of intersections. An offset necessary to assure safety and efficiency based on traffic engineering principles shall be required. Upon submittal by a traffic engineer and approval by the city of a study that demonstrates the safety and effiCiency of an intersection offset of a lesser distance, the minimum intersection offsets of 100 feet on a local street, 200 feet on a collector street, and 400 feet on an arterial street may be adjusted. Offsets shat! be measured from the center lines of the two intersecting streets. Ordinance ~ 34 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (00 108082) lO.DOC 09/27/05 (22) Pedestrian Circulation On*site Adjustment. Where this land use code provides that on-site pedestrian circulation may be adjusted, the standards may be adjusted upon finding that, considering site constraints or practical difficulties, the proposed design provides adequate pedestrian connections: (a) Between building entrances and streets or accesways; (b) Between new and existing buildings on the development site, including recreation and community facilities; (c) From proposed Industrial, commercial and institutional uses to adjacent parcels having similar existing or planned uses; (d) To nearby transit stops, parks and other recreation facilities; and (e) Between parking lots and main buildings. @ Section 57. Subsection (1) of Section 9.8055 of the Eugene Code. 1971, is amended to provide: 9.8055 @ (j}) Cluster Subdivision- Approval Criteria,. General. The planning director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a proposed cluster subdivision. Approval or approval with conditions shall be based on the following: (1) The proposed subdivision complies with: (a) EC 9.8515 Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- General except for the standards related to EC 9.2760 Residential Zone Lot Standards; (b) EC 9.2750 Residential Zone Development Standards; [(c) lEe 92000 throl;JQR R@9Hi regaroing lot dimensions, solar standards, ~:md dem~it}' requirements for the subject zone; Cd) EC 9.6500 through EC 9.0510 Public Improvement Standards; ans (e) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Streets, Alleys, and Other Publie \^Jays Standards.] With the exception of density requirements.[+Jthe residential [lot and] development standards ofEC 9.2750 Residential Zone Development Standards and EC 9.2751 Special DevelOlJment Standards for Table 9.2750 may be relaxed based on compliance with the remainder of the cluster subdivision criteria. An [approved] exception or an adjustment to a development standard [pursuant to the provisions beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code] constitutes compliance with the standard. Section 58. Subsection (8)(c) of Section 9.8090 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.8090 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria - General. A conditional use permit shall be granted only if the proposal conforms to all of the following criteria: (8) The proposal complies with all applicable standards, including but not limited to: Ordinance - 35 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (00 108082) 1 O.DOC @ 09/27/05 (c) EC 9.6800 through EC [9.6870] 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and other Public Ways; Section 59. Subsection (1)(b) of Section 9.8215 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.8215 @ to provide: 9.8220 @ to provide: 9.8310 Partition. Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- General. The planning director shall approve, approve with conditions. or deny a partition, with findings and conclusions. Approval, or approval with conditions, shall be based on compliance with the following criteria: (1) The proposed partition complies with all of the following: (b) EC 9.6800 through EC [9.6870] 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways. Section 60. Subsection (2)(b) of Section 9.8220 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended Partition. Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- Needed Housina. The planning director shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the partition application. Unless the applicant elects to use the general criteria contained in EC 9.8215 Partition. Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- General, where the applicant proposes needed housing, as defined by the State statutes, the planning director shall approve or approve with conditions a partition based on compliance with the following criteria: (2) The proposed partition complies with all of the following: (b) EC 9.6800 through EC [9.6870J 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways. Section 61. Subsection (2)(b) of Section 9.8310 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended Tentative Planned Unit Development General Application Requirements. (2) Project Coordinator and Professional Design Team. The tentative PUD application shall identify the PUD project coordinator and the professional design team and certify compliance with the following: (a) Proiect Coordinator. The project coordinator shall: 1. Be the liaison between the applicant and the city. 2. Ensure that the required plans are prepared and executed according to any required conditions. 3. Either be a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners or licensed in the state of Oregon to practice architecture, civil Ordinance - 36 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)10.DOC @ 09/27/05 engineering, or landscape architecture. The project coordinator. or at least one design team member, shall attend all public meetings at which the proposal is discussed. (b) Professional DesiQn Team DesiQnation. Unless waived by the planning director, the professional design team shall consist of at least the following professionals: 1. Oregon licensed arborist. 2. Oregon licensed architect. 3. Oregon licensed civil engineer. 4. Oregon licensed landscape architect. 5. Oregon licensed land surveyor. [6. A member of the /\meric~m Institute of Certified Planners.] Section 62. Subsection (5)(a) of Section 9.8320 of the Eugene Code. 1971, is amended to provide: 9.8320 @ Tentative 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: (5) The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with the following: (a) EC 9.6800 through EC [9.6870] 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways (not subjectto modifications set forth in subsection (11) below). Section 63. Subsection (6)(a) of Section 9.8325 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.8325 @ Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria.. Needed HousinQ. The hearings official shall approve, conditionally approve, .or deny the PUD application with findings and conclusions. Unless the applicant elects to use the general criteria contained in EC 9.8320 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria- General. where the applicant proposes needed housing, as defined by the State statutes. the hearings official shall approve or approve with conditions a PUD based on compliance with the following criteria: (6) The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with all of the following: (a) EC 9.6800 through EC [9.6870] 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways (not subject to modifications set forth in subsection (11) below). Section 64. A new Section 9.8335 is added to the Eugene Code, 1971. to provide: Ordinance - 37 C:\Documenls and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OO108082)lO.DOC 9.8335 e 9.8410 @ @ to provide: 9.8440 @ to provide: 09/27/05 Modifications to An1Jroved Tentative Planned Unit Development. The applicant may apply for a modification of the approved PUD tentative plan following the Type II process. The planning director shall approve the request only if it complies with the following criteria: (1) The proposed modification is consistent with the conditions of the original approval. (2) The proposed modification will result in insignificant changes in the physical appearance of the development, the use of the site, and impact on the surrounding properties. If the planning director determines that the proposed modification is not consistent with the above criteria, the proposed modification may not occur. Nothing in this section shall preclude the applicant from initially submitting the requested modification as a new tentative PUD application. Section 65. Section 9.8410 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: Property Line Adiustment Application Requirements. In addition to the provisions in EC 9.7010 Application Filing, the following specific requirements shall apply to property line adjustment applications. (1) Except for parallel property line adjustments to platted lots, when the adjusted property line is a distance of even width along the common boundary, all applications shall be prepared by an Oregon licensed land Surveyor. (2) Applications shall be signed by at least one of the owners of each parcel involved, and shall include a current preliminary tiUe report issued within one year of the date the application is submitted, for each parcel. Section 66. Subsection (3}(a) of Section 9.8440 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended Site Review Approval Crlteria>>General. The planning director shall approve, conditionally approve, Of deny the site review application. Approval or conditional approval shall be based on compliance with the following criteria: (3) The proposal provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with all of the following: {a} Compliance with EC 9.6800 through EC [9.6870] 9.6875 Standards for Streets. Alleys. and Other Public Ways. Section 67. Subsection (1}(b) of Section 9.8515 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended 9.8515 Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria. General. The planning director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a proposed subdMsion. Approval, or approval with conditions shall be based on compliance with the following criteria: (1) The proposed subdivision complies with the following: Ordinance>> 38 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK.4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (00108082) 10.DOC @ to provide: 9.8520 @ 9.8580 @ 09/27/05 (b) EC 9.6800 through EC [9.6870] 9.6875 Standards for Streets. Alleys, and Other Public Ways; and Section 68. Subsection (3)(b) of Section 9.8520 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended Subdivision. Tentative Plan Approval Criteria. Needed Housing. The planning director shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the subdivision application. Unless the applicant elects to use the general criteria contained in EC 9.8515 Subdivision. Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- General, where the applicant proposes needed housing, as defined by the State statutes, the planning director shall approve or approve with conditions a subdivision based on compliance with the following criteria: (3) The proposed subdivision complies with all of the following: (b) EC 9.6800 through EC [9.6870] 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways. . Section 69. A new Section 9.8580 is added to the Eugene Code, 1971, to provide: Modifications to A""roved Subdivision Perlormance Agreement. The applicant may apply for a modification of the approved subdivision perlormance agreement following the Type II process. The planning director shall approve the request only if it complies with the following criteria: (1) The proposed modification is consistent with the conditions of the original approval. (2) The proposed modification will result in insignificant changes in the physical appearance of the development. the use of the site, and impact on the surrounding properties. If the planning director determines that the proposed modification is not consistent with the above criteria, the proposed modification may not occur. Nothing in this section shall preclude the applicant from initially submitting the requested modification as a new subdivision tentative plan application. Section 70. Section 9.8700 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.8700 Purpose of Vacations. In order to ensure the orderly development of land, public ways in the form of streets, roads, alleys, rights-of-way, pedestrian and/or bicycle easements and accessways, or utility easements are established. obtained. or reserved by the city. As land develops, and as land uses change over time, public ways may no longer be necessary for ensuring the orderly development of land. This land use code and state law provide procedures, requirements, and criteria for vacating public ways. The vacation process includes a review of the need for public ways and the manner in which to dispense with public ways. In addition, sections 9.8700 through 9.8725 of this land use code provide a process for the vacation of Ordinance - 39 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)10.DOC 09/27/05 undeveloped subdivision and partition plats or parts thereof. Section 71. Section 9.8710 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.8710 (7a> .....~ Vacations. Application ReQuirements. (1) Vacation of unimproved pUblic easements shall be considered in accordance with the Type I Application Procedures contained in EC 9.7000 through 9.7885 and the approval criteria contained in EC 9.8715. In the case of public utility easements, statements of concurrence with the vacation from affected utility providers must be submitted with the application. (2) Vacation of improved public easements. unimproved pUblic right-ot-way, and vacation and rededication of unimproved publiC rights-at-way, except improved public easements and public right-of-way located within undeveloped subdivision or partition plats, shall be considered in accordance with the Type 11 Application Procedures contained in EC 9.7000 through 9.7885 and the approval criteria contained in EC 9.8720. In the case of public utility easements, letters of concurrence to the vacation from affected utility providers must be submitted with the application. (3) [Notwithstanding the provisions in subsections (1) and (2) above. v]Vacation of any public way acquired with pUblic funds, vacation of improved pUblic right- of-way, and vacation of undeveloped subdivision and partition plats, or parts thereof, including public right-of-way and improved public easements located therein, shall be considered and decided upon by the city council in accordance with the [Type IV I\~plication P]procedures contained in EC [9.7000J 9.7445 through [9.7885] 9.7455 and the approval criteria contained in EC 9.8725. . (4) All [A]applications shall be accompanied by the application fee established by the city manager pursuant to Chapter 2 of this code, and an additional amount sufficient to pay the expenses related to publication of the vacation notice~ (45) In addition to payment of the application and publication fees referenced in subsection (34) above, a vacation of improved or unimproved public right-of- way, any publiC way acquired with public funds, or any undeveloped subdivision or partition plat, or portions thereof, shall require the payment by the applicant of a deposit equal to the assessment of special benefit that results from the vacation and disposition of property to the benefitted property owners. (a) The assessed value of special benefit and the amount of money to be deposited shall be determined by the city manager[ and approved by the city council]. The assessed value of special benefit shall include: 1. The value of the real property; and 2. The costs incurred by the city in the construction of public improvements. (b) Notice of the proposed assessment for benefits shall be given by mail to the owners of the property to be assessed no less than 20 days prior to the public hearing of the vacation application before the city council, or in the case of Type II applications, 10 days prior to the issuance of the Planning Director's decision. [consistent with the public hearing notice procedures proscribed in EC 9.7400 General Overvie'", of Tvpe IV Application Procedur~$. tG)} The notice shall contain a statement of the names, addresses, and the ~~ Ordinance - 40 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (00108082) 1 O.DOC (Sp ...-'" @ @ 09/27/05 amount of the proposed assessment of each land owner's special benefit by the vacation. Where a public hearing is required, the notice shall also include [aRG] the hour, date, and place of the pUblic hearing at which the city council will hear objections to the vacation or assessment. (dc) At least 5 working days prior to the public hearing, or in the case of a Type /I application, 5 working days prior to the decision, the land owner shall deposit with the city the sum of money called for by this subsection (45). (ed) If the vacation application is approved [by the city council], the deposit shall be retained by the city[ as directed by the city council]. If the vacation application is denied [by the city council], the deposit shall be retumed to the land owner. (6) For vacations of improved or unimproved right-of-way, the application must include the required consent from surrounding property owners as set forth in ORS 271.080(2). (57) For vacations of unimproved public easements and improved public easements, [under the Type I or Type 1\ process,] the application must include the signatures of all property owners [~] and owners of property [subject to the easement and the owners of aDutting properties] adjacent to the easement being vacated. Section 72. The lead paragraph of Section 9.8715 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.8715 Approval Criteria for the Vacation of an Unimproved Easement. The planning director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the vacation application. Approvalh] or approval with conditions shall be based on all of the following. Section 73. Section 9.8720 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by adding a new Subsection (4) thereto, to provide: 9.8720 ~1) Approval Criteria for Vacation of Improved Easements, Unimproved Public RiQht..of-Way, and Vacation and Rededication of Unimproved Public RiQht-of- Way. The planning director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the vacation application. The application shall be approved if the vacation is found to be consistent with the all of the following criteria: (4) Payment of the special benefit assessment(s) resulting from the vacation of unimproved right-of-way required by EC 9.8710(5)(a), have been made to the city_ Ordinance - 41 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisiollil (OOl08082)lO.DOC 09/27/05 Section 74. The attached Figure 9.0500 Lot lines, Lot Frontage, Lot Width, Lot Depth, and Industrial Corridor Map 9.7805 are hereby adopted as amendments of, and replacements for, the existing Figure 9.0500 and Map 9.7805. Section 75. The Legislative Findings attached as Exhibit A hereto are adopted in support of this Ordinance. Section 76. 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 77. 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 78. Sections 37 and 39 of the Eugene Charter of 2002 require that procedures for vacating a public improvement be regulated by general ordinance, that any ordinance amending those procedures not take effect for a period of six months after the date of adoption, and then only if the ordinance is approved by an affirmative vote of six councilors. Pursuant to those Charter provisions, the amendments to Sections 9.7055,9.7405,9.8700,9.8710,9.8715, and 9.8720 of the Eugene Code, 1971 as set forth herein shall become effective six months after the date this Ordinance is adopted, and then only if this Ordinance is approved by an affirmative vote of six councilors. Section 79. 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. If that date is less than six months from the date this Ordinance is adopted, those Sections referenced in Section 78 above shall not Ordinance - 42 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (00 1 08082) 1O.DOC 09/17/05 become effective until the six month period has expired. If the date is more than six months, those Sections shall become effective at the same time as the other provisions of this Ordinance. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this _ day of ,2005 _ day of . 2005 City Recorder Mayor Ordinance - 43 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Tempomry Internet Files\OLK4F\OS Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl 08082) 1 O.DOC Exhibit A FINDINGS The following criteria from Ee 9.8065 shall be applied to the proposed code amendment: (1) The amendment is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Goal] - 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 infonnation, the process followed is consistent with Goal 1. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policyframework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual basisfor 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 infonnation 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 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, Goal 3 does not apply. Goal 4 - Forest Lands. To consen'e forest lands. The amendments are for property located within the urban growth boundary and do not affect any land designated for forest use. Therefore, Goal 4 does not apply. Goal 5 - Open Soaces. Scenic and Historic Areas. and Natural Resources. To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. These amendments do not create or amend the city's 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 confllcting uses with a significant Goal 5 resource site and do not amend the acknowledged UGB. Therefore, 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. The amendments to not affect the City's ability to provide for clean air, water or land resources. Therefore, Goal 6 does not apply. Goal 7 - Areas Subiect to Natural Disasters and Hazards. To Protect life and propertyfrom natural disasters and hazards. The amendments do not effect the City's 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, 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. The plan amendments do not effect the city's provisions for recreation areas, facilities or recreational opportunities. Therefore, 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 Oregon :s citizens. The amendments do not impact the supply of industrial or commercial lands. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goa19. Goal] 0 - Housing. To providefor the housing needs of citizens of the state. The amendments do not impact the supply of residential lands. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal I O. Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, order~v and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a frame""Jork for urban and rural development. The plan amendments do not effect the City's provision of public facilities and services. Therefore, Goal 11 does not apply. Goal 12- Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. (Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) contains the following requirement: (1) Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use regulations which significant~y 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 capaci~y 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 afunctional classification system; (c) Allows types or levels ~fland uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional class~fication of a transportation facility; or (d) Would reduce the peiformance standards ofthefacility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSPJ Due to the minor nature of these amendments, the proposed amendments do not affect the provision of safe, convenient and economic transportation systems and do not significantly affect any transportation facilities. Goali3 - Energy Conservation. To conserve energy. The amendments do not impact energy conservation. Therefore, Goall3 does not apply. Goal 14 - Urbanization. To provide for an order~y and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. The amendments do not affect the City's provisions regarding the transition of land from rural to urban uses. Therefore, Goal 14 does not apply. Goal is - Willametfe River Greenway. To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural. economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willmnette 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, Goal 15 does not apply. Goals 16 - i9. Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocaen resources. These Statewide Plmming Goals do not apply to the actions taken. (2) The amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted refinement plans. The proposed code amendments include minor changes to the Land Use Code with the intent of addressing gaps, ambiguities and conflicts without raising significant policy issues. Given the minor nature of these amendments, there are no relevant Metro Plan policies affected by this action. The proposed 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 proposed amendments do not establish a special area zone. Therefore, this criterion does not apply to these amendments. MINUTES ATTACHMENTC Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Eugene City Hall, Council Chamber - 777 Pearl Street PRESENT: May 17,2005 6 p.m. John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Jon Belcher, members; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Mike McKerrow, Planning and De- velopment Department staff. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, Anne Marie Levis, members PUBLIC HEARING ON LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT Land Use Code Amendments (CA 04-4) Consideration of various minor amendments to the Eugene Land Use Code Lead Staff: Steve Nystrom, Principal Planner (541) 682-8385 Mr. Lawless convened the meeting ofthe Eugene Planning Connnission. He announced that the time allowed for each person giving testimony would be extended from three to five minutes. Principal Planner Steve Nystrom stated that the purpose of the hearing was to consider Land Use Code amendments that were characterized as "Minor Fixes." He said there were 81 separate amendments under consideration representing the first of two phases based on direction from the City Council to improve the code. He explained that minor amendments were intended to address conflicts identified in implementing the code and gaps or ambiguous language, but did not raise any serious policy concerns. He noted that the commission had reviewed the amendments in a series of work sessions prior to the hearing. He drew the commission's attention to the matrix of proposed minor code fixes that described each of the 81 amendments in terms that identified the problem and the potential solution and to the draft ordinance that provided specific code language for all of the amendments. He reminded the commission that the hearing was the first formal step for considering the amendments and it would receive public testimony and then begin deliberations. He said that once the commission had concluded its delibera- tions it would make a formal recommendation to the council on the proposed amendments. He said the agenda item summary contained answers to many of the questions raised by the commission during its work sessions. Mr. Lawless opened the public hearing. Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, Eugene, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, expressed appreciation for the time and effort of the commission and staff to improve the code. He said MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission Public Hearing May 17,2005 Page 1 the Chamber's review of amendments applicable to commercial zones raised no objections or concerns about unintended consequences. He was pleased to see an amendment that clarified that the C-I limitation on 5,000 square feet on businesses applied to new buildings rather than an existing site, as well as the amendment that exempted loading docks on commercial buildings from the window requirements. He said that the exemption of outdoor restaurant seating from off-street parking requirements was another example of the practical and sensible nature of the amendments. He said when improvements to the City's Land Use Code were considered, the commission should keep in mind that the code should enable good things to happen in the community. Jim Welsh, 2139 Centennial Plaza, Eugene, representing the Eugene Association of Realtors, stated he was pleased to note that their association had no conflict with the proposed amendments. He observed that the amendments were common sense, clarified code intent, reduced conflicts, eliminated redun- dancy, and improved consistency in the code. He thanked staff for initiating the process to consider Land Use Code amendments and thanked the commission for reviewing each of the proposed amendments and determining whether they were minor or involved a larger policy discussion. He said that Phase 1 amendments represented significant work by the commission and staff, the work was good, and the results would undoubtedly provide a more efficient and effective planning process that would save the private and public sectors time and money. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Home Builders Association of Lane County, supported the minor amendments proposed by staff. She said there were no objections to the amendments and many of them were welcome changes. She commented that while none of the amendments reflected policy changes, sometimes simple things could make a difference. She said that the proposed amendment to EC9.2761(5)(d) to provide for an additional exception to lot size to allow for natural resources should be clear that more than just GoalS resources was intended, such as upland trees. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eugene, requested that the record remain open for an additional seven days for submission of written testimony because of the substantial number of items that were being considered. He indicated that the Neighborhood" Leaders Council might wish to comment on the amendments. He expressed some concerns about on-site pedestrian circulation being included for adjustment review, as well as the connectivity issue, which was a controversial subject in some neighborhoods. He said there were several other issues he needed more time to research, including a new definition for curve lots that was confusing with respect to measuring the width of wedge or pie-shaped lots. He said holding the record open for an additional seven days would serve the public's interest. Mr. Lawless asked staff what impact there would be to holding the record open an additional seven days. Mr. Nystrom replied that it was a City.initiated legislative matter and there was no deadline to be concerned about nor was there an obligation to extend the record. He mentioned that public outreach throughout tbe amendment process had drawn limited response from the public, neighborhood groups, the development community and other groups. Mr. Lawless pointed out that the connnission would be making a recommendation to the City Council, which would also hold hearings on the matter. Mr. Belcher asked if the commission's deliberations could begin while the record was open. PlalUling Director Susan Muir replied that the commission could discuss the amendments but no action could be taken. . MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission Public Hearing May 17,2005 Page 2 . . } Ms. Colbath, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to leave the record open until May 24, 2005, at 5 p,m. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Lawless closed the public hearing and called for discussion by the commission. He suggested that the commission review each page ofthe matrix and identify items they wished to discuss further. EC 9.0500. Lot width and vision clearance area defmitions Mr, Lawless asked about the lot width measurement concerns raised by Mr. Biggs. Mr. Nystrom replied that the defmition provided was a fairly universal definition used by many communities and was geared toward using side yards that were generally opposing as the starting point and could be applied to odd1y- shaped lots. He cautioned that the defrnition should not be complicated with additional qualifying language as the purpose of the amendments was to simplify the code. Mr. Lawless asked if the interpretation or methodology for applying the definition would be available to an applicant Mr. Nystrom said that the proposed definition had not yet been used in Eugene so there was no track record and it was likely that scenarios would arise that did not match exactly with the definition and interpretations would be necessary. Mr. Belcher commented that the issue was whether the proposed definition was better than the existing one, not did it cover every possible exigency. Ee 9.0500. Development site definition Ms. Colbath remarked that the amendment might not be a change in policy, but there were many ownership scenarios and since she did not know how extensively the definition was used in the code she was not certain how comprehensive the change would be. She agreed that it was a good idea to be able to evaluate more potential properties but had questions about whether the consequences of the amend- ment. Mr. Nystrom replied that the multiple ownership issue already existed in code language. He said there were two spectrums being addressed by the amendment and the development site questions was raised frequently in many different situations such as permits and land use applications. He said the old code definition would prevent consideration as one development site unless the parcels were bisected by a street that was not done through a subdivision. He used the Faith Center conditional use permit (CUP) as an example of a project with multiple tax lots under common ownership tbat was bisected by two streets that fortunately qualified under the old definition, but tbat was a rare situation and staff wanted to avoid having a project with one master plan and multiple CUPs. He said the purpose was to be able to look at a project holistically. Mr. Nystrom said another reason for the amendment was to address day~to-day situations that arose. He said the current definition allowed areas under common o\Vtlership to be considered one development site for building permit purposes with related uses and supporting parking, but staff did not want to have one building permit create the need to look at all contiguous property, such as might occur in the downtown area. He indicated the amendment was intended to capture both ends of the spectrum. Ms. Colbath asked if the proposed amendment would affect the ability to consider the traffic impacts of proposed development sites bisected by streets. Mr, Nystrom said the amendment would provide more ability to consider the project's traffic impact comprehensively. MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission Public Hearing May 17,2005 Page 3 . . / Mr. Belcher asked if several contiguous lots across several contiguous streets were under common ownership would it be possible for the owner to develop a property on own end of that spectrum of contiguous streets and provide the parking several blocks away. Mr. Nystrom said the code already contained provisions for off~site parking, but the amendment would allow consideration of a redevelop- ment plan more comprehensively instead of by individual tax lot. He used the development at 29th Avenue and Willamette Street as a site where several parcels were under common ownership and other were under separate ownership to illustrate that the City could not mandate that the different property owners work together under one umbrella. Mr. Lawless concurred with the ability to combine resources into larger master planned developments and look at larger sites more holistically. Mr. Nystrom said that the material change related primarily to the issue of parcels bisected by a street; the issues of contiguous property and common ownership already existed in the code. Mr. Belcher asked if there was any advantage to establishing a limit on the size of the development site. Mr. Nystrom responded that there was little benefit to establishing an arbitrary limitation and the size of the site was very different from one geographic area to another. EC 9.2161(1). C-2limitation of 5.000 square feet of floor area Mr. Belcher asked tfthe amendment would allow for expansion ofa use that was larger than 5,000 square feet or just make it an existing allowable use. Mr. Nystrom replied that the amendment would allow occupancy of the existing space but not permit expansion. He said the intent was always to apply the 5,000 square foot limitation on new development, not impose it on existing tenant spaces and the amendment clarified that intent. EC9.2760 (table). R-l rowhouse lots In respqnse to comments from Mr. Lawless,:Mr. Nystrom said the amendment began with the R-l zone's 50-foot wide minimum for rowhouse lots, which was a mistake. He said the standard in other zoning districts was 20 feet and the commission asked staff to determine whether that was adequate in the R-l zone. He said staff determined that in communities with more rowhouse development, 18 feet was a common width and the question before the commission was whether that was acceptable and should be applied across other zoning districts as well. :Mr. Lawless encouraged the width to be set as low as practical, such as 15 feet, to avoid requiring adjustment reviews. Ee 9.2795(3)(a). Exemption from Solar Setback requirement Ms. Colbath noted that staff had modified the amendment pursuant to concerns raised by the commission and asked if other changes were anticipated. Mr. Nystrom replied that the other issue related to steep sloped areas and how properties were held to the Solar Setback requirements given that exception processes currently existed. He said the amendment could remain on the list of possible amendments in the second phase but staff would not push for it. EC 9.66100). Time period for election sign exemption MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission Public Hearing May 17,2005 Page 4 , t .. Ms. Colbath clarified that the time period requirement applied only to Lane County elections. She asked if an election occurred in a county adjacent to Lane County and the issue was one that Lane County residents were interested in, would Lane County residents be prohibited from putting up a sign for that election. Land Use M;anagement Supervisor Mike McKerrow replied that the prohibition would apply as the goal of the language was to prevent candidates from using an election in another county to "jump the gun" and put up signs ahead of other candidates and use another county's election as the reasoning. Ms. Colbath used the example of a proposed action in Linn County that would affect the entire Wil. lamette Valley airshed. She asked if Lane County residents would be prohibited from putting up signs related to that election. Mr. McKerrow replied that for an election that was happening in another county and in which Lane County residents could not participate, signs could not be put up based on that election date in another county. Mr. Belcher clarified that signs could still be put up prior to a Eugene election if there were any other non-typical elections such as a recall election in Florence. Mr. McKerrow agreed because Florence was in Lane County. EC 9.6630(1), Installation of si!ms prior to permit issuance Mr. Hledik asked for clarification of the proposed change from date of approval to date of issuance. Mr. McKerrow explained that the sign was approved by the Building Permit staff and the applicant was contacted to pick up the approved plans and pay any additional fees, at which point the permit was issued. He said that sometimes applicants were notified of approval hut installed the sign before paying the additional fees and obtaining the permit. He said the amendment clarified that the permit had to be in possession before the work was done. EC 9.7015. Completeness review Mr. Hudspeth requested an explanation of completeness review and how the proposed amendment applied. Mr. Nystrom said the completeness review was the first formal step in the land use application process and consisted of a review of the application to determine that all the materials were present in order for the formal review to proceed. He said the City had 30 days to complete the review and the amendment clarified sorne changes in State law to ensure consistency. He said that previously State law did not specify the point at which the 120-day time period was triggered and the amendment clarified responsibilities to reply. Mr. Nystrom said that staff would schedule a future meeting for further deliberations. Mr. Lawless adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 6:50 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) m: 12005\planfling and development departmeflt\planning division \planning CQmmission\pc050517ph.dQc MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission Public Hearing . May 17, 2005 Page 5 $ ~. Home Builders ASSOCIATION of Lane County ATTACHMENTD May 17, 2005 Eugene Planning Commission City of Eugene 777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon 97401 Re: Minor Code Amendments Dear Commissioners: The Home Builders Association of Lane County supports the proposed minor amendments. The amendments all appear to be housekeeping in nature. The HBA gives special support to the following amendments: 9.0500 which (among other things) broadens the definition of canopy trees to allow for the use of conifers 9.2761 (5)(d) which would provide an additional exception to the maximum lot size to enable the protection of natural resources. (Question: Natural resources are not defined in Chapter 9. If this is limited to only Goal 5 resources in riparian areas, we would encourage a larger definition to include such natural resources as trees, etc.) 9.2761(6) which clarifies that specific percentages of duplex, triplex, and fourplex lots are permitted in R~ 1 subdivisions. 9.2775(1) which eliminates the language in the purpose section pertaining to the screening of flag lots 9.2795 which changes the solar setback exemption to those building lots which would shade adjacent lots because of the lot orientation. 9.5500 which makes the amount oflandscaped area for multifamily construction equal to the amount required to be in open space under 9.5500(9). 9.6650(3){c) which penuits a permanent sign for a manufactured dwelling park. 2053 Laura Street Springfieldf OR 97477 (541) 484-5352 FAX: (541) 484-5386 # 9.6730(4) 9.6745 9.681 0(4) 9.6815 9.6820 9.6885 9.7110 9.8030 9.8055 9.8310 9.8335 which allows adjustment of on-site pedestrian circulation consistent with the criteria of 9.8030(22). which allows specific intrusions into the setbacks for stories above the ground floor. which allows for block lengths of greater than 600 feet if the developer demonstrates that the resulting street network will not create excessive travel lengths and will accommodate necessary emergency access. which provides greater flexibility with regard to street connectivity requirements without sacrificing the goals of street connectivity. which clarifies the use of cul-de-sacs and provides greater flexibility without sacrificing the goals of street connectivity. which permits a developer to submit plans by a landscape architect as an alternative to those of a certified arborist. which allows the planning director to approve an application with conditions. which improves the conditions for adjustment review. which facilitates the use of cluster subdivisions. which eliminates the requirement that the pun design team include a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. which allows a modification of a tentative PUD approval. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on these proposed code amendments. Sincerely, /:?ox~ ~~ Roxie Cuellar Director of Government Affairs