Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4: Public Hearing on Ordinance on Minor Land Use Code Amendments ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Public Hearing: Minor Land Use Code Amendments An Ordinance Concerning Land Use; Amending Sections 9.0500, 9.2160, 9.2161, 9.2171, 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 Meeting Date: October 24, 2005 Agenda Item Number: 4 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Steve Nystrom www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-8385 ISSUE STATEMENT The City Council will hold a public hearing on the Eugene Planning Commission recommendations regarding the proposed minor amendments to the Eugene Land Use Code (Chapter 9). BACKGROUND The council held a work session on this item on Wednesday, October 12, 2005. Staff has attached the background materials that were provided for the work session, as well as other pertinent information. In response to City Council comments at the work session, the matrix list, which provides a synopsis of the proposed amendments, has been revised to include an expanded discussion of many of the proposed amendments. The council also questioned whether any of the proposed code amendments could provide a financial benefit to any affected properties. Staff and the City Attorney did evaluate this issue and concluded that in general, the minor nature of these amendments made it difficult to determine any measurable increase in value that would be bestowed on properties. However, staff did identify a few amendments which could arguably result in such a benefit. These amendments are listed by the reference number on the attached matrix: Item 22: Adds reduced lot width provision for rowhouse lots which was not accounted for during LUCU revisions. Even though rowhouses are currently allowed, current omission in the code makes it more difficult to create rowhouse lots than would be the case if the code was amended. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051024\S0510244.doc Item 42: Corrects an inadvertent change made during LUCU which increased the parking requirement for Wholesale Trade. Amendment would go back to pre-LUCU parking ratio, resulting in less area devoted to parking. Item 44: Modifies landscape requirement for parking structures along interior yards, potentially allowing additional building area along the interior yard area. Staff suggests eliminating these three amendments from consideration if the council determines these issues to be of concern. 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. SUGGESTED MOTION None; this is a public hearing only. ATTACHMENTS A. Agenda Item Summary for October 12, 2005, Work Session B. Revised Matrix of Proposed Amendments C. Draft Ordinance and Findings D. Minutes of Planning Commission meetings E. Written Testimony FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Steve Nystrom Telephone: 682-8385 Staff E-Mail: steven.a.nystrom@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051024\S0510244.doc ATTACHMENT A 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 of LUCU, 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:\CM0\2005 Council Agendas\M051012\S051012B.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:\CM0\2005 Council Agendas\M0510l2\S051012B.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:\CM0\2005 Council Agendas\M051012\S051012B.doc ATTACHMENT B Proposed Minor Code fixes (As recommended by the Planning Commission) 9.0500 CD 9.0500 (J) 9.0500 6) 9.0500 (1) 9.0500 @ 9.0500 @ 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 Projects are prohibited from utilizing coniferous trees in order to meet the canopy tree requirements. However, there are many coniferous trees that provide the same intended level of cano as deciduous trees. "Curved lots" are listed in Lot Standards Table (EC 9.2760), but the term is not defined. The code allows a reduced lot width for curved lots, much like cul- de-sac lots. Definition restricts ability to comprehensively evaluate a project when streets bisect a site. Any land use application involving multiple parcels bisected by a street (created in a subdivision) would have to be evaluated se aratel . Code requires a duplex to be one building, but does not specify how the two units must be attached. Staffhas commonly seen requests to connect units only by breezeways and other similar features. Requires recording of deeds prior to April 2, 1962. In some cases, the deeds may be signed but original owners many times neglected to record the document. Current definition measures lot width at the front setback. In the case of residential lots, this means the lot is measured 10' back from the street. This definition does not provide a logical point for measuring overall lot width, nor does it apply well to non-rectangular sha ed lots. Change the definition of canopy tree to include coniferous trees that meet the current 50' canopy requirement. Provide a definition which accounts for lots on curved streets. The definition would limit lots to those on the outside curve of a street, similar to cul- de-sac desi s. Clarify definition so that a development site will include parcels separated by a street. This would give the city the authority to require one comprehensive application rather than piecemeal a lications. Clarify minimum requirements for how units must be attached, consistent with current interpretations. This interpretation will require that a common wall, ceiling; or floor connect the 2 units. Change definition to be based oil date that the deeds are signed. Since many of these cases involve new owners, this change would not penalize the current owner for a previous owner's ne lect. The purpose of lot width standards is to ensure an adequate buildable area as well corresponding separation between buildings. The revised definition will provide a midpoint measurement which more accurately reflects actual lot width, while accounting for non-rectan 1ar lots. 9.0500 "Vision clearance area" The definition explains how to Include the dimension of 35 (j) definition regarding dimensions determine the vision clearance feet in the definition to coincide triangle but doesn't denote that with the figure. the triangle legs are 35' long. 9.2160 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) CUP requirement excessive Allow RV sales in C-2 zone as required for RV sales in C-2 compared to other similar uses a permitted use consistent with zone which are permitted outright auto-related uses. @ (i.e. auto and motorcycle sales, auto repair, service stations). RV issues addressed through commercial design standards. CUP process in these cases doesn't add value. 9.2161(1) C-llimitation of 5,000 square Code is unclear if 5,000 sq. ft. Clarify that the limitation only (j) . feet of floor area per tenant as it limitation applies to new applies to new buildings in C-l, relates to existing buildings tenants in existing buildings so as to enable tenant reuse of which already exceed 5,000 sq existing building. ft. Table 9.2170 Percent of building fayade GO zone does not specify the Clarify the minimum percent of 9.2171(5)(c) required within 15' maximum minimum percentage of building frontage that must be setback for General Office building facade that is required located within the maximum (GO) zone within the 15' maximum setback. GO zone is typically @ setback. C-2/C-3 zones require considered to be less intense 25% of the building to be than C-2/C-3 and more intense within the setback; C-l requires than C-l. Therefore, a 80%. requirement of 60% was determined appropriate. 9.2171(5) Buildings in C-2 & C-3 are "Internal private way" is not The code already contains required to be within 15' of a defined. Term is intended to definitions within the "Large @ street or "Internal private way" account for internal streets Commercial Facilities" within a commercial center, development standards which which are distinguished from address the same issue. drive aisles, by providing curb Amendment would reference and raised sidewalk designs. these definitions. 9.2171(1l,d) Outdoor Display within Only plant and garden supply Establish an adjustment review 9.8030 required setback displays are allowed within 7' option for outdoor displays of front property line within C- consistent with purpose of @ 2 & C-4. Does not allow other commercial design standards. potentially acceptable forms of outdoor display (e.g. antiques, art) 9.2171(15)(e) Reference to stacking lane Code incorrectly references the Replace current reference with @ requirements parking lot standards rather correct reference to drive- than drive-through standards. through standards. 9.2173(10)(c) Large commercial building Since loading docks typically Exempt the window (j). standards - loading docks. don't face public view, requirement along walls Standard requires ground floor windows would pose little containing loading docks. windows on all sides of a large benefit and pose potential commercial building, including. conflicts with design of the loading docks. loading dock. 9.2180,9.2470, "Average Lot Width" The term "Average lot width" is Eliminate the word "average" 9.2686,9.3220, requirement for Commercial, mistakenly referenced. Lot from each code section. 9.3822 Industrial, Public Land, width is not measured by an @ Downtown Westside & Royal averaging approach (see 9.0500 Node S ecial Area zones for definition of lot width . 9.2450(table) Land Use Table for Industrial Section 9.5750 specifically Add the "S" symbol to the Land @ Zones related to allows telecommunication Use Table enabling Telecommunication towers and towers in 1-1, but this is not telecommunication towers in facilities reflected on the Use Table (EC the 1-1 zone, subject to special 9.2450 . standards. 9.2450(table) Trucking Terminals allowed in Since 1968 this use has been Clarify that trucking terminals @) 1-2 and 1-3 zones permitted outright in these two are permitted outright in the 1-2 zones, however it is not and 1-3 zones by listing in the specifically listed in the 1-2 and industrial use matrix. 1-3 use tables. 9.2683(2) PL zone requires a Site Review Language is unclear. Could be Clarify language such that the for many uses and a CUP for read to require a Site Review in projects requiring a CUP are @ more significant uses within addition to a CUP. The intent not also subject to Site Review. 300' of residential property was to elevate more intense uses to a more intense public hearin rocess (i.e. CUP . 9.2685(1) Height of buildings within 50' Language is not clear that the Clarify that the special height of a residential zone restricted special height restriction is restriction applies only for that ([j) to height limit of adjacent limited to that portion of a portion of a building within 50' residential zone building within the 50' buffer. of a residential zone. Does not account for buildings with v 'n hei hts. 9.2741 Land Use Table for Residential Rowhouses are allowed in Include reference in the Land @ Zones, related to rowhouses residential zones, subject to Use Table regarding special specific limitations in some limitations listed in EC 9.735. zones. Table does not reference the special limitations listed in EC 9.735 Sitin Re uirements 9.2760 (table) Creation of duplex, triplex & Code not clear this is limited to Modify language consistent 9.2761(6) fourplex lots in new subdivision plats, not partitions. with duplex provisions in subdivisions: Allows limited Also implies that a request to 9.2741(4,5,6). Also, clarify that @ number of multi-family lots in utilize the allowance for a duplex, triplex, fourplex R-l subdivisions duplex, triplex or fourplex in an designation entitles (rather than R -1 subdivision is binding, mandates)owner to develop lot rather than an option, thereby with extra unites) precluding future options to simply build a single family residence instead. 9.2760 13,500 sq. ft. maximum lot size Standard intended to encourage Revise language such that the requirement for R-llots infill in R -1 by limiting new R-l maximum lot standard @ parcels to 13,500 sq. ft. applies to land divisions only Currently applies to existing (subdivisions, partitions). parcels as well. Could prohibit 2 existing lots over 13,500 sq. ft. from adjusting a common property line. 9027@ Exceptions to maximum lot size Current exceptions do not Clarify that an exception to 2-t.f clearly allow waiver of the maximum lot size can be maximum lot size based on granted in order to protect natural resource protection. natural resources. 9.2761(6) Special standards for Provision is intended as an Specify that this code section establishing duplex, triplex and exception for R-llots only, but only applies to subdivisions in @ fourplex lots in subdivisions the code implies it affects R-l zones. multi-family zones too. Multi- family zones already allow duplex, triplex and fourplex units. 9.2775(1) Purpose statement regarding Purpose statement references Eliminate screening language @ flag lots old code provision regarding consistent with current flag lot screening along flag lot prOVISIons. driveway, however the requirement for screening was eliminated in LUCU update. 9.2795(3)(a) Exemption from Solar Setback Intended to exempt parcels on Correct the compass reference requirement: Lots having 20% steep slopes (>20%) which error by referring to north @ slope and generally north facing won't cast significant shadows facing lots regarding on adjoining lots. Code exemption. incorrectly references south facing lots. Table Residential Day Care, 3-12 Table lists day care for 3-12 Add an "S" in the permitted 9.3910 persons served in Whiteaker persons, but does not specify if column to clarify that this use is @ Special Area Zone use is allowed. Table does list allowed if specific standards are day care for over 12 persons as met. permitted, thereby supporting the intent that less than 12 persons should also be allowed. 9.4730(3); Site review required for Site Review process provides Eliminate requirement for site 9.4830(2,b) wetland restoration projects no additional benefit as wetland review for wetland restoration approved by West Eugene restoration projects are subject projects approved by the @ Wetland Mitigation Bank team to extensive review and Mitigation Bank team within requirements at State and the fWB and /WP overlay Federal level far exceed local zones. Would affect future city site review provisions. Projects restoration projects. have been limited to city restoration projects. 9.5250(1)(b) Farm Animal Standards - lot Code is unclear on whether Clarify that the development size for large animals. A more than one contiguous lot site must be at least 20,000 @ minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. is under the same ownership can square feet to allow large required for larger animals, be used toward the minimum animals. such as horses, cows, sheep, etc 20,000 square feet to allow large animals. 9.5350 Home Occupation Standards Standards only apply to Clarify code by removing the @ residential zones even though reference to all residential code allows home occupations zones at the beginning of this in residences located in some section, so that the standards commercial zones. also apply in commercial zones. 9.5350 Home Occupation requirements Code restricts flag lots from Add provision in Home @ being used for home Occupation Standards (EC occupations [EC 9.2775(4)]. 9.5350) clarifying prohibition This is not reflected in 9.5350. on flag lots. 9.5500(8)(a) R-2 Multi-Family Standards: Current language conflicts with Modify minimum landscaping @ Minimum landscaping and lot revised lot coverage and open requirement for the R-2 zone, coverage standards space standards. Requires all consistent with open space area outside of maximum prOVlSIons. allowed building footprint to be landscaped. 9.5500(9)(a)5; Multi-Family Standards- Current provisions conflict: Modify code to match existing 9.5500(9)(c)2 Minimum Common Open Minimum required open space interpretation using a minimum @ Space Requirement area is 250 square feet, but dimension of 15 feet for open (a)(5) requires minimum space. dimension of 20 feet, resulting in a 400 sq. ft. area 9.57 50( 6,a, I 0); Requirements for Code requires review by Replace old name with current 9.5750(6,b,ll) telecommunication facilities Oregon Aeronautics Division. name of state agency. @ Agency has changed their name to the Oregon Department of Aviation. 9.580~C) Sign standards for temporary Language could potentially Clarify that signs must be uses allow signs or temporary uses located on the site of the be placed off-site, or city-wide. temporary use. 9.5800(5)(b ) Duration of temporary uses in Current code could arguably Apply limitation on the number @ commercial zones allow temporary uses year of events allowed per year, round in 2 week increments similar to residential zones (with 24 hours between events). (3/yr.). 9.6 I 05 (4)table Bike parking for Library use Parking table does specify the Clarify that 25% shall be long number of spaces required for term and 75% short term @ library use, but not the spaces, consistent with other proportion of long and short similar uses. term bike parkinl2: spaces. 9.6105(4)table Bike parking for "Office Use is specifically identified in Include Office Equipment and ~ Equipment and Supplies" use vehicle parking table, but was Supplies category with bike inadvertently left off the bike parking standards consistent parking table. with similar uses (1 space/3,000 sq. ft.). 9.6105(4)table; 9.6410(table) @ 9.6410(3) @) Bike and Vehicle parking requirements for "Martial Arts" uses Parking requirements for outdoor restaurant seating Martial Arts are specifically called out in Commercial and Industrial zones, but are not included in bike and vehicle arkin re uirements. Code is not clear how to treat outdoor seating in parking calculations requirement (which is based on seating number). Since outdoor seating is typically seasonal, some reduction in the parking for outdoor seats better reflects actual need. 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, consistent with long held practice. 9.6420(3)(e) @ Parking island requirement regarding landscape coverage Inconsistency between code language and figure. Figure indicates that parking islands need to meet L-2 standards while code Ian a e is silent. Clarify that parking islands need to meet 70% landscape coverage requirement, consistent with L-2 standards. 9.6610(1) @ 9.6610(1) @ 9.6610(1) 9.6615 @ Exemptions to sign standards for "mall vending" Time Period for Election Sign Exemption Downtown Activity Zone Sign Exemption Exemption for signs related to "mall vending" is outdated due to repeal of Administrative Rule R-3.336. Vending signs in the downtown are now administered b DEI. Code does not clearly tie the time period for erecting election signs to the date of an election in which Lane County residents ma vote. Eugene Code does not recognize the existing provisions exempting city review for portable signs downtown. Such signs are administered b DEI. 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. 9.6630(1) Installation of Signs prior to Language in code is not clear as Clarify code to match current @J Permit Issuance to when signs may be installed. policy that permit issuance, not Some applicants have installed permit approval, must occur signs before paying for their before installing sign. permit. 9.6640(4)(d) Vision Clearance Area for Reference to Vision Clearance Clarify this reference by using @) Signs: standards was not modified in same applicability provisions as LUCU to match revised main Vision Clearance Area language describing when section (EC 9.6780). standards apply. 9.6650(3)(c) Signs for Manufactured Home Code allows identity sign (e.g. Allow identity sign for a @ Park project name) for a subdivision manufactured home park or Planned Unit Development consistent with other residential but not a manufactured home developments. park. 9. 6670(6)(b) Reference to Revocable Permit Current code requires revocable Revise code to allow Public @ Requirements for Signs in permit for all forms of signs in Works staff the ability to waive ROW the public right-of-way. Some revocable permit process for signs, such as plaques, or other minor signs minor signs don't warrant permit requirements 9.670@ Flood Plain Standards Current standards do not match Revise code to meet federal new federally mandated standards. language. 9.6730 On-site Pedestrian Circulation Code does not allow applicants Create an adjustment review 9.8030 to request alternative provision allowing @ approaches to the requirements consideration of alternatives to regarding pedestrian the current standards, provided circulation. the alternative meets or exceeds the same objectives as the standards. 9.6745(3)(b) Projecting Architectural Previous language was Modify language to clarify that Features for Multiple Story inadvertently omitted which these architectural features are Buildings allowed eaves, chimneys and allowed to project as per current (fJJ similar architectural features policy, which includes the above one story to project into second story. side yards (as is allowed for the first story). Would allow a chimney to encroach on first floor but not the second floor. 9.6745(3)(c) Allowance for signs in required Code section describing Revise code to be consistent in @ front yard setbacks allowed intrusions of signs into all three locations which setbacks does not match currently allows signs to extend allowance cited in residential up to 5' into 10' front yard zones & sign standards. setback. 9.6805; 9.6870 Dedication of Public Ways References to public way Provide necessary references in (tab~ design standards do not ensure Chapter 9 to ensure other consistency with public adopted design standards and improvement standards and policies are applied. Arterial Collector Street Plan. 9.6810 Requires new local streets to Code does not allow flexibility Create an exception provision intersect with other streets at from the 600' standard except allowing requests for intervals of 600' or less for physical constraints. Some exceptions to the 600' standard @) larger subdivisions may provide while maintaining street a thorough network of streets, connectivity and emergency but have an intersection slightly access objectives. > 600' , requiring another unnecessary street. 9.6815(2) Adjustment Review regarding Adjustment review process is Eliminate requirement for street connectivity redundant. Street connectivity separate adjustment review and @ is already evaluated as part of instead, fold in same land use application requirements into an exception (subdivision, partition, PUD, process as part of the primary etc). Any requests for land use application review. exceptions can be handled This will consolidate all street through the main application. connectivity discussion without changing any actual requirements. 9.6820; Cul-de-sac requirements Language describing when a Clarify circumstances in which 9.80~)(b) cul-de-sac vs. alternative exceptions to cul-de-sac design designs (i.e. hammerheads) can can be requested and granted. be used is confusing. 9.6870 (table) Cul-de-sac design standards Right-of-way (ROW) and Revise the table to specify @ paving width requirements are consistent right-of-way not consistent with other standards for cul-de-sacs adopted public works standards 9.6885(2) Tree preservation plans requires Requirement is limited to Revise standard to allow report from certified arborist certified arborists. In some landscape architects as well as @ cases, landscape architects are certified arborists to provide the better equipped to look at required report. broader site design options to improve tree preservation. Especially relevant when tree health/vitality are not key factors. 9.7015 Completeness Review: Language is not consistent with Revise language to ensure @ Timeline for response to more recently adopted State consistency with State Law. incomplete applications Statutes which puts burden on the applicant to inform city of their intention to provide missim! information. 9.7020 Waiver of time lines Current language implies any Clarify limitation on timeline @ timeline can be waived, waivers consistent with state however a recently adopted statutes (maximum of 245 state statute limits time waivers days). for land use applications. 9.7110 Type I decisions: Limits EC 9.8415 and 9.8715 allow Correct conflicting language by decisions to approval or denials conditional approval of amending EC 9.7110 to allow ~ property line adjustments and for conditional approvals. unimproved easement vacations. This conflicts with language under Type I process, which implies projects can only be approved or denied as is. 9.7605,9.7655 Filing deadlines for appeals Code requires filing of appeals Specify that the deadline within 12 days of notice of expires at 5pm or the close of @ decision but does not specify the regular business day. the time of day for this deadline (e.g. could allow after hours submittals). 9.7805(map), Industrial Corridor Map ICCO map doesn't precisely Revise geographic description 9.78~ match the boundaries in the in 9.7885 and map to match " 1991 Industrial Corridor agreement. Agreement. 9.8010 (table) Reference to adopted plans Many dates listed in table are Eliminate dates from the table includes specific dates for each not reflected on adopted plan or of applicable plans. @ plan. do not correspond to date of adoption. If plans are amended, it would require a code amendment simply to reflect new date. 9.8030(10) Traffic Demand Management Code allows the city to require Establish ability to require (TDM) Plans: Adjustments to an annual report for TDM's annual reports for TDM plans @ parking standards involving a reduction in requesting adjustments to minimum parking, but not for maximum parking TDM's involving excess requirements. parkinj2;. 9.8030(10) Adjustment to parking Requires TDM approval before, Revise language so that a TDM @ standards: Timing and rather than a part of adjustment plan is reviewed as part of requirement for TDM plans review. Requires formal TDM adjustment review. Allow for all requests. Some ability to waive formal TDM adjustment reviews can be plan if required adjustment adequately addressed without a review criteria are otherwise formal TDM. met. 9.8055(1) Cluster Subdivision Criteria Criteria reference redundant. Strike EC 9.8055(1)(c), (d) and @ Lot dimensions, street and (e). public improvement standards already addressed within standard subdivision criteria. 9.8055(1) Cluster Subdivisions: Doesn't include intended range Revise language and review Relaxation of lot and of standards which can be process to provide intended (jj) development standards relaxed (i.e. Setbacks, lot range of standards available for coverage etc). Also requires relaxation while integrating an separate adjustment review exceptions process (same process instead of integrating requirements) into subdivision within the subdivision process. process. 9.8090(8)(c) Approval criteria for various Approval criteria require Amend various code references 9.8215(1)(b) land use applications regarding compliance with street to ensure approval criteria 9.8220(2)(b) street connectivity standards connectivity standards (EC require compliance with private 9.8320(5)(a) @ 9.6800-9.6870), but street standards (EC 9.6875). 9.8325(6)(a) inadvertently excluded 9.8440(3)(a) reference to private street 9.85 I 5 (1)(b) design standards (EC 9.6875). 9.8520(3)(b) 9.8130(2) PUD Design Team must Requirement for AICP planner Eliminate the AICP @ include a member of the does not necessarily correlate to requirement. American Institute of Certified better prepared projects. AICP Planners (AICP), unless waived is a voluntary certification, and by Planning Director does not serve an accurate measure of effectiveness. 9.8335 Modification to Approved PUD's have 2 approval steps. Establish a provision to allow Tentative PUD's Code does not allow requests requests for modifications to @ for minor modifications to the tentative PUD's similar to Final first step (Tentative PUD's), but PUD process (Type II review). does for the second step (Final This will enable public notice PUD). Applicants are either as is required for all other required to start the process modifications requests. over, or process the final PUD for a project they have no desire to build, simply to avail themselves of the modification process. 9.8410(1) Property Line Adjustment: Code does not reflect ORS Add language consistent with (ij) Surveyor Stamp required requirement for surveyor stamp ORS requirement to require on parallel adjustments for surveyor stamp in these unplatted lots (lots not created situations. through a land division). 9.8410(2) Property Line Adjustments: Staffhave, at times, had Add language to require a @ Title report required difficulty obtaining title reports current preliminary title report from applicants that are current, (within one year). given lack of clarity in the code. 9.8580 Final Subdivision requirements EC 9.7025 requires Establish Type II modification performance agreements related process similar to other to subdivisions. No means performance agreements (i.e. @ available to consider Site Reviews, CUP's, PUD's) modifications to agreements as is allowed for many other similar applications. 9.8710 Vacations of improved right-of- State law only requires Council Clarify that vacations of @ way (ROW) approval of ROW vacations, improved right-of-way go which until LUCU, is how such directly to City Council requests were handled. LUCU (including public hearing). standardized all application procedures (Type I through V), which did not account for this unique vacation process. 9.8710(6) ROW vacation: Consent Code only references a portion Include reference to applicable requirements of ORS requirements which ORS requirements. @ apply to vacations of ROW. Does not include requirements pertaining to consent of adjoining and surrounding property owners. 9.8710(7) Required consent for public Language conflicts with intent Revise language to clarify utility easement vacations to require consent from any consent is only required of @) owners adjacent to the portion owners of property adjacent to of easement to be vacated. the easement in question. Implies consent also required from unaffected neighbors. 9.8720 Unimproved ROW vacation: Code does not specify how and Provide language similar to Payment of assessed value when applicant shall pay for Type N ROW vacations. @) vacated unimproved ROW (Type II process). However, code does specify provisions for vacations of improved ROW. Last revised 10/17/05 . Amendments identified for possible elimination due to potential increase in property value 09/27/05 ATTACHMENT C ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING LAND USE; AMENDING SECTIONS 9.0500, 9.2160, 9.2161, 9.2171, 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 @) (i) 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 [f*:IGIiG] street or alley[ shall be considered one development site, unless the land was legally dividod]. Dwelling, Duplex. A building designed and used as dwellings for 2 families 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\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)lO.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 (B) By a deed [recorded] that was signed before April 2, 1962. Lot Width. The horizontal distance between [straight lines connecting front :md rear lot lines :Jt 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 lines 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 B. 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, 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-way, 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 (OOI08082)IO.DOC (j) @ (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 if 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 [GJ 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 Special 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 [the] 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\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)lO.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 80% 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 [pri'.'3to 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. (de) 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. (et) 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.) Outdoor Merchandise Display. (a) Except for plants and garden supply products, outdoor merchandise display is not allowed in C-1 and GO zones. (b) In the C-2 and C-4 zones, outdoor display of the uses listed in subsection 1. of this subsection, is permitted when in conformance with the standards listed in subsection 2. of this subsection. 1. Plants and garden supply products; motor vehicle sales, service, and repair; new and used boat sales; large equipment sales and rentals; service station pump islands; vending machines; manufactured home sales; children's outdoor play equipment; and hot tubs. 2. Outdoor merchandise display is not permitted in required setback areas. Except for plant and garden supply displays, outdoor display areas shall be set back a minimum of 7 feet from the front lot lines with required setbacks landscaped to at least the EC 9.6210(1) Basic Landscape Standard (L-1). (c) In the C-3 zone, outdoor merchandise display is permitted if all products are placed in an enclosure after business hours. Ordinance - 4 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)lO.DOC (11) 09/27/05 @) (d) Adjustments to subsection (b)2.of this section may be made based on criteria in EC 9.8030(2)(d). (15) Drive-Through Facilities. @ (e) Stackina Lanes. Design of stacking lanes shall conform with the requirements of EC [9.6420 Parkina Aroa Stmd3rds19.6415 Loadina and Drive- Throuah Desian 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 - Laroe Commercial Facilities. (10) Exterior Wall Articulation, Facades, and Ground Floor Windows. @ (c) Except for building walls with loading docks orfacing an alley, ground floor walls shall contain windows (as stated below) at the ground level. The windows may extend a maximum sill 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-Ground 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 [J'.'Ierage] Width Minimum (1) Interior Lot 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet Corner Lot 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet Ordinance - 5 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)lO.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: Table 9.2450 Industrial Zone Land Use and Permit Re 1-1 @ Motorc cle Sales/Rental/Service Parking Area not directly related to a primary use on the same develo ment site Recreational Vehicle and Heavy Truck, Sales/Rental/Service Re air, includes aint and bod sho Service Station, includes quick servicing --Only permitted if property is located over one-half mile by motor vehicle travel from commerciall zoned land. Structured Parking, up to two levels not directly related to a rima use on the same develo ment site Structured Parking, three or more levels not directly related to a rima use on the same develo ment site Tires, Sales/Service Transit, Nei hborhood 1m rovement Transit Park and Ride, Ma'or or Minor Transit Station, Ma'or Transit Station, Minor Truckin Terminal P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Amateur Radio Antenna Structure See EC 9.5050 Broadcastin Studio, Commercial and Public Education Electrical Substation, 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 rocedure that shows low visual im act. Fiber Optic Station, 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 rocedure that shows low visual im act. P P P SR P P Ordinance - 6 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)lO.DOC @ @ 09/27/05 Table 9.2450 Industrial Zone land Use and Permit Requirements 1-1 1-2 1-3 Pump Station, well head, non-elevated reservoir, and other SR P P 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 Facility (See EC 9.5750) S S S Water Reservoir, elevated above ground level SR SR 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 9.2471. Table 9.2470 Industrial Zone lot Standards 1-1 1-2 1-3 [Average] Width Minimum (1) Interior lot 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet Corner lot 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet Curved lot 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet Cul-de-sac Bulb 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet Alley Access 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet Flag Lot 40 feet 20 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 will generate the need for a Traffic Impact Analysis according to EC 9.8670 Applicability. such use shall be subject to an approved site review application according to the Type II procedures. 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 (OOl08082)lO.DOC 09/27/05 feet of the boundary of an abutting residential zone is limited to the height allowed in [all] the abutting residential zone[ '....hen loc::ltod within 50 foot of the bound::lry of tho residonti::ll 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 [Average] Width Minimum (1) Interior Lot 50 feet Corner Lot 50 feet Curved Lot 35 feet Cul-de-sac Bulb 35 feet Flag Lot (2) 40 feet Section 12. Subsection (3) of Section 9.2741 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by adding a new Subparagraph (d) thereto, to provide: 9.2741 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. 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\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)1O.DOC 09/27/05 @ @ Interior Lot 7 Corner Lot Curved Lot Cul-de-sac Bulb Lot Residential Flag Lot (4) Rowhouse Lot Table 9.2760 Residential Zone Lot Standards See EC 9.2761 S ecial Standards for Table 9.2760. R-1 R-1.5 R-2 R-3 50 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 50 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 35 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 35 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 50 feet 15 feet R-4 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Lot Area Maximum (5) (New subdivisions and partitions onl 13,500 square feet Triplex Four-plex 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) @ 7{ CW (6) Existing physical circumstances such as topographically constrained lands, conservation easements, existing buildings, or utility 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 division 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 Residential Flaa 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 (OO108082)10.DOC 09/27/05 m (2) of a street is not necessary to meet connectivity standards. The standards require access for fire protection[ ::md 31so require soroening to protect the priv3cy of 3butting 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) Flaa Lot Dimensions. Residential flag lot [3ver3ge] 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 Westside 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 Westside Special Area Zone Lot Standards S-DW [Average] Width Minimum Interior Lot (1) 20 feet Corner Lot (1) 20 feet Curved Lot (1) 20 feet Alley Access 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 0 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 (00108082) 10.DOC 09/27/05 (jj) 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 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 50 feet 50 feet 20 feet 50 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 30 feet 30 feet 20 feet 30 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 30 feet, 20 feet Duplex ani Other Residential Lot 30 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 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: Table 9.3910 S-W Whiteaker S ecial Area Zone Uses and Permit Re P2 s Section 20. Subsection (3) of Section 9.4730 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.4730 IWP Waterside Protection Overlay Zone Land Use and Permit Reauirements. Within the IWP overlay zone there are 2 categories of uses: those allowed by the base zone or special area zone outside of the IWP area, and a more restrictive list of uses allowed within the IWP area. Ordinance - 12 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OO108082)10.DOC @ @ 09/27/05 (3) Uses Permitted Within IWP Areas Subject to Site Review. Within IWP areas, the following uses are permitted, 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 permit for development within the IWP 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 storm 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 IWP 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 ifrequired, 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 "Record 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\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)lO.DOC 9.4830 09/27/05 /WB Wetland Buffer Overlav 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 /WB 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\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)lO.DOC to provide: 9.5250 @ 09/27/05 @) within the /WB 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 "Finding 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 [~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 ~II residenti~1 zones] shall be subject to the following standards: (13) A home occupation shall not be permitted in 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:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (00108082) 10.DOC (8) @) @ 09/27/05 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 shall be [the percent3ge 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 shall 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 [2Q] 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 park. 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:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\LocaI Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)lO.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 [Aeronoutics 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 [.^.eronautics 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 Di'.'ision] 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 [Aeronoutics 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 [Aeron~:lUtios 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 Temporarv 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 (OOl08082)1O.DOC @ @ GY 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. ParkinQ 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 timo] 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 Bicycle 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 Type and % of Bicycle Parkin Ballet, Dance, Martial Arts, and 1 per each 400 square feet of floor 25% long term G nastic School/Academ IStudio area. 75% short term Library 1 per each 500 square feet of floor 25% long term area. 75% short term Office Equipment and Supplies 1 per each 3000 square feet of floor 25% long term area. 75% short term Ordinance - 18 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)lO.DOC (ig) @ 09/27/05 Section 28. 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 Parkina 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 calculated as provided in Table 9.6410 Required Off-Street Motor Vehicle Parking. @) (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 Parkin Uses Minimum Number of Required Off-Street Parkin S aces Wholesale Trade (excluding regional distribution center 1 per each [awl 1650 square feet of floor area. Section 29. Subsections (3)(e) and (3)(f)1 of Section 9.6420 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide: 9.6420 Parkina Area Standards. (3) Landscape Standards. @ (e) Interior Parkino Area Landscaoino. [4-:-] 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[.;a,..l.] improve the visual qualities of these areas,[.,..9.; Ordinance - 19 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)lO.DOC 09/27/05 Q.]delineate and define circulation movements of motorists and pedestrians,[-:Gri]improve air quality, and[.,....Eh.-E]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. @ 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. Interior 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 Parkina. 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 alley. 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 Sian 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: @ rMaUl Vendina in Downtown Activitv Area. Signs, including portable signs, for [maUl Downtown Activity permits issued per private commerce on public property (Administrative Rule R-3.336). Sians Durina Elections. Signs 12 square feet or less in area, located on Ordinance - 20 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\OS Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)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 @ 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 Citv Manaaer - Authority to Set Fees and Charaes. When a person begins construction of a sign requiring a sign permit before [such 3] 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 to provide: 9.6640 @ General Provisions. (4) Location Standards. (d) Vision Clearance. Signs must comply with vision standards [~ vehioular, bicyclo 3nd pedestri3n trovel intersect] as specified in EC 9.6780 Vision Clearance Area. (See also EC 9.6255 Vision Clearance Area Landscaoina.) Section 34. Subsection (3)(c), of Section 9.6650 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.6650 Residential Sian Standards. The residential sign standards are hereby created and applied to all 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)1O.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 shall have the right to [, :md sh311] 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-af-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 (OOl08082)lO.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 [er:] a minimum of one foot above the base flood elevation. (e) Shallow Floodina Areas - With Depth Desianations. 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 (00108082) 1 O.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-Site. @ (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 feet, provided such projections are at least 8 feet from any building on an adjacent lot, include: 1. Eaves, cornices, belt courses, sills, awnings, buttresses or other similar features. 2. Chimneys[.,] and fireplaces, [and bay windows,] 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 (OOl08082)lO.DOC @?J 09/27/05 (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: 9.6805 @ 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. ~]Public 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 9.6870. [Public '."Iays f-or bicycle :md pedestrian use to be dedicated to the public by the applicant shall be at least 20 foet 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 @ Block Lenath. Block length for local streets shall not exceed 600 feet, unless [~ developer demonstrates that a block length must 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 /I or Type 11/ process, the developer demonstrates that the resulting street network will not create excessive travel lengths and will accommodate necessary emergency access. Section 41. Subsection (2) of Section 9.6815 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.6815 Connectivity for Streets. (2) Street Connectivity Standards. (a) All streets and alleys shall 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) [~] through (I) 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 fire and emergency medical 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 (OOl08082)10.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. (d) 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. (et) 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 III land use decision, the city shall grant an exception to [+]the standards in [tRis] subsections (2)(b), (c) or (d) [m3Y bo adjusted if consistent with the criteria of EC 9.8030(12)(3) of this kind 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)lO.DOC 9.6820 @ provide: 9.6830 09/27/05 Section 42. Section 9.6820 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: Cul-de-Sacs or Emeraencv Vehicle Turnarounds. (1) Except for streets that are less than 150 feet long and streets that will be extended in the future, all streets that terminate shall be designed as a cul-de- sac bulb or an emergency vehicle turnaround. (2) If a street [qualifies for an oxception under soction (1) boc~uso it] will be extended in the future, a temporary easement shall be provided and an emergency vehicle turnaround shall be constructed[ in ~n altornativo location]. (3) [If a stroot qualifies for ~n exception under soction (1), ~ hammorhe~d turnaround sh~1I be substituted where possible. (4) There shall be no cui do sacs more than 400 foot long from tho centerline of the intersecting streot to the radius point of tho cui de s~c bulb. (5) The planning diroctor sh~1I roquire 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[.,] 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 provide safe, convoniont, and direct circubtion for pedostrians, bicyclists, ~nd emergency '.'ohiclos]. (84) As part of a Type II or Type 11/ process, an exception [adjustment] may be granted to the requirements of (1) and (43) of this section if [consistont 'Nith the critorb for ~djustment of EC Q.8030(12)(b) of this 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 lands, 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 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)[{G}]. 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 (OOl08082)10.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 shall be the maximum shown for its type in Table 9.6870 Right-of-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. @ Table 9.6870 Right-ot-Way and Paving Widths Type ot Street or Alley Right-ot-Way . Paving Width (tor Public Streets and Alleys only) Major Arterials 100' - 120' 68' - 94' Minor Arterials 65' -100' 46'70' Major Collector 60' - 75' 32' - 44' Neighborhood Collector 40' 55' 20' - 43' Bicycle and Pedestrian Accessway: With Fire Accessibility 20' 20' Without Fire Accessibility 10' 10' Local Streets Alley (secondarv access) only 14' [W112' Alley (primary access) 20' 12' one-way travel 20' two-way travel Access Lane 40' - 55' 21' - 28' Low Volume Residential 45' - 55' 20' - 28' Medium Volume Residential 50' - 60' 20' - 34' Commercial and Industrial 55' - 70' 30' - 44' Cul-de-sac Bulb Radius: Residential [47] 48.5" 35' Non-residential 62' 50' *Measured from face to face of curbs @ (1) Slope Easements. Because of terrain, slope easements may be required to facilitate the construction of streets and alleys and protect the structural integrity of the constructed roadway. Slope easements [tAese] shall be granted in addition to the required street or alley width listed in Table 9.6870 Right-of-Way and Paving Widths. (2) Construction Standards. All 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 (OOl08082)1O.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. [Within 10 d3YS of the mailing of a notice of missing inform3tion, the 3ppliccmt sh311 submit to the city a 'Nritten st3tement indiC3ting either 3n intent to submit the missing inform3tion or a refusal to submit the missing informCltion.] 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 [oot] be provided; or (3) Upon [the 11tR day after m3iling the notice of missing informCltion referred to above, if the applicant 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 complied with (1), (2), or(3) of this section. Section 47. Section 9.7020 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: fWaiver tol Extension of Time Limit Restrictions. Upon the written request of [+]the applicant [may] submitted to the planning director, [a statemont waiving] 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, D = 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\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)10.DOC 09/27/05 @ Table 9.7055 Applications and Review Authorities R = Recommendation, D = Decision Maker, A = Appeal Review Authority Application Type Planning Hearings Historic Planning City Director Official Review Commission Council Board Vacations: - Unimproved Easement I D - Undevelooed Plat fM D - Unimproved Public II D A Right- of-way, Improved public Easements - Vacation and Re- II D A dedication of Unimproved Public Right-of-way - Vacation of Improved M D Public Right-of-way, and vacation of any pubic way acquired with public funds Section 49. Section 9.7110 ofthe 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 T e IV A Iication Re T e IV A Iications Refinement Plan Amendment, Site S ecific Chan e Street Name Chan e [Vacation of Impro'.(ed Public Right of way, vacation of public right of way acquired with public funds, and vacation of undevelopod subdivision and partition plats, including public right of way and improvod public easements located thorein Zone Changes Processed Concurrent with a site specific Refinement Plan amendment* Reference EC 9.8850 * A zone change to apply the IND 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) 1 O.DOC 9.7605 @ provide: 9.7655 @ 09/27/05 Filina of Appeal of Plannina 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 12th 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 Filina of Appeal of 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 12th 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 boundod on the '.vost by tho .MgkQ.E.@n urbon growth boundary as of I\pril1 QQ1, on the oost by the North'l.'ost Express'.vay, on tho north by IVNbroy Lano, and on tho south by Eugene's city limits os of April 1 , 1 QQ1 This orea is offected 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:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)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 List of Adopted Plans Bethel-Danebo Refinement Plan (Phase 11)- River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan- 4-Q8.7 Riverfront Park Stud - 4-98e South Hills Study-[4-9+4] South Willamette Subarea Stud - 4-988 TransPlan (Metro Area Transportation Plan)- 4989 West Eu ene Wetlands Plan- ~ West University Refinement Plan-[~] 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 Adiustment 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 Disolav 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). (10) 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 Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)1O.DOC @ @ @ 09/27/05 adjusted, the standards may be adjusted upon finding the applicable corresponding criteria are met. (a) Number of Required Off-Street Parkina 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 Engineers vehicle trip generC:1tion 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 parking 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 /TO overlay zone, an adjustment that approves installation up to 150 percent of the minimum spaces required 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. (12) [Streets, J\lIeys, and Other PubliG Way] Intersections of Streets and Alleys Standards Adjustment. [/\s sot out below, specific standards set forth in EC 9.6815 through 9.6830 pertaining to streets may be adjusted if the corresponding criteria are met. (at Streot Connecti':itv Standards. As:m alternative to complianco with the standards of EC 9.6815(2) Streot Connecti'/ity Standards (a) (d), tho applicant may, at his or hor expenso, provide to the city a local stroet connoction study th:lt domonstratos how the proposod streot systom Ordinance - 33 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)lO.DOC 09/27/05 @ meets the intent of street connectivity provisions of this bnd use code 3S exprossed in EC 9.6815(1), and ho\'.' unde':eloped or p3rti3lly developed properties within a quarter mile C3n be adequately served byalternati':o street layouts. Approval of the street connection study by tho city shall constitute 3n adjustment to the stand3rds of EC 9.6815(2). The requirements of subpar3graphs (b) 3nd (c) m3Y be adjusted if it is demonstr3ted th3t a connection C3nnot be made bec3use of the existence of one or more of the following conditions: 1. Physic31 conditions preclude development of the connecting street. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, topogr3phy or likely impact to n3tural resource 3re3S such as wetlands, ponds, streams, ch3nnels, rivers, 13kes or upbnd wildlife habit3t area, or a resource on the ~.J3tional \^/etbnd Inventory or under protection by st3te or feder311aw 2. Buildings or other existing development on 3dj3cent bnds, including previously subdi'/ided but \<3C3nt lots or parcels, physically preclude a connection noVl or inthe future, considering the potenti31 for redevelopment.] [(b) Cui de S3CS. 1. An 3djustment to the requirement of EC 9.6820(1) may be granted if it is sho':m that topogr3phic constr3ints, existing development, or n3tural fe3tures prevent the construction of 3 ~ 2. The limit3tion of a 400 foot m3ximum length for a cui de S3C in EC 9.6820(4) m3Y be 3djusted if 311 of the following conditions ~ 3. The physic31 sh3pe of the property prevents 3lternati'le de':elopment p3tterns 3nd there are no pr3ctical 31tern3tive street byouts 3vailable th3t 'Nould meet street connecti','ity. b. The physiC31 conditions of the property preclude the 3bility to 3chie'le the density permitted according to the zoning of the propertY'l,'ith a cui de S3C of only 400 feet. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, topography or the existence of natural resource are3S such 3S 'lIetI3nds, ponds, streams, ch3nnels, rivers, 13kes or upland wildlife habitat area, or 3 resource on the N3tional Wetl3nd Inventory or under protection by state or federaI13'N. (c) Intersection St3ndards.] 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 shall be measured from the center lines of the two intersecting streets. Ordinance - 34 C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\OS Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOI08082)IO.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 @ @ 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) EC 9.2000 through 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions, solar standards, and density requirements for the subjoct zone; (d) EC 9.6500 through EC 9.6510 Public Improvoment Standards; and (e) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Stroots, Alleys, and Othor Public 'Nays Standards.] With the exception of density requirements,[+]the residential [lot and] development standards of EC 9.2750 Residential Zone Deve/olJment Standards and EC 9.2751 SlJecial Deve/olJment Standards for Table 9.2750 may be relaxed based on compliance with the remainder of the cluster subdivision criteria. An [approvod] exception or an adjustment to a development standard [pursuant to the provisions beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land uso 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 (OOl08082)lO.DOC @ to provide: 9.8215 @ to provide: 9.8220 @ to provide: 9.8310 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 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 [9.6870] 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 Reauirements. (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)lO.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 Desion Team Desianation. 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. 1\ member of the American 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 Housina. 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:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OO108082)10.DOC 9.8335 @ 9.8410 @ @ to provide: 9.8440 @ to provide: 09/27/05 Modifications to Approved 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 Reauirements. In addition to the _provisions in EC 9.7010 Application FilinQ, 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 title 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 Criteria-General. The planning director shall approve, conditionally approve, or 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 subdivision. 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\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)1O.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 Housina. The planning director shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the subdivision application. Unless the applic~nt 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 Approved Subdivision Performance Aareement. The applicant may apply for a modification of the approved subdivision performance 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)lO.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 Vacations. Application Reauirements. (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-of-way, and vacation and rededication of unimproved public rights-of-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 II 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) 3bove, '1]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 ~7 Q accordance with the [Type IV /\pplic3tion P]procedures contained in EC \!...9l [9.7000] 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 3ppro'led 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 Gener31 Overviev: of Tvpe IV Application Procedures. ~ 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 (OOl08082)1O.DOC @ @ (6) (67) @ 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 [aM] the hour, date, and place of the public hearing at which the city council will hear objections to the vacation or assessment. (ec) At least 5 working days prior to the public hearing, or in the case of a Type II 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). (ad) If the vacation application is approved [by tho city council], the deposit shall be retained by the city[ 3S directod by the city council]. If the vacation application is denied [by tho city counoil], the deposit shall be returned to the land owner. 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). For vacations of unimproved public easements and improved public easements, [under the Typo I or Type II process,] the application must include the signatures of all property owners [ef....tAe] and owners of property [subject to the e3semont and the ownors of 3butting propertios] 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. Approval[.,] 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 @ Approval Criteria for Vacation of Improved Easements, Unimproved Public Riaht-of-Wav. and Vacation and Rededication of Unimproved Public Riaht-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 Revisions (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 de~med 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 (OOl08082)lO.DOC 09/27/05 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\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor Revisions (OOl08082)1O.DOC Figure 9.0500 Curved Lot / / Change in bearing greater than 100 / -- --- --- --.....--------- I -..... I '.... I Reduced Lot I Frontage (35' ~) --I ,/' : ,/' ,/' Street Centerline ---1' I I I - - I I I I I I /: I R = Less than 300': I I 1______--- I I \ I \ I I \ I \ I ~ l - - -- J Note: Only those lots on the outside of a curved street shall be eligible for reduced lot frontage Figure 9.0500 Lot Width \ Street 75' I (J1 0 \ -A C1l Lot Width I \ I (J1 q -A \ C1l I 40' - Industrial Corridor Boundary Map 9.7805 Industrial Corridor _\ \ ~~fRREY N \ \ J u ~ '\ -~ ~ .\ 'I ~ f-'- .... 'F - ... r--, =:) . ~ \ \ AUc~ -;>== "'11_ "\\ ~ II ~m~ I " \. rxJ1~ _ ~!lliWill trt~\ENID ~ Etr ~ . l ~ I ~ '~~~ I ~ ~~\~ ~q~~~~ "'~ II" I I ~ 11 ~ II ... \ ~ W!JJJliij "~~ r- ~~ \ ~WSB {~)~ \~ ~ \\\\ n &\ f-,:;,;, \ \\ 1I~ ~ ~ ~. \ \'\ ffiRm~ ~\\ \,~ I \\. -, , I. m \ .. _I~' " ~ ~ ~ \ L.J.. ~~0- \\ ~ \ "\ \\ ~l :~. ~\, " \~. lR .~ \ ~,~ .r . ~\\ \ \. II \ '----' I ) r/ ) IJ w r-- I ,/ g N t1i A JI~ ~\. ILl Exhibit A FINDINGS The following criteria from EC 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 information, the process followed is consistent with Goal 1. Goal 2 - Land Use Planninf!. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual basis for such decisions and actions. The Eugene Land Use Code specifies the procedure and criteria that were used in considering these amendments to the code. The record shows that there is an adequate factual base for the amendments. The Goal 2 coordination requirement is met when the City engages in an exchange, or invites such an exchange, between the City and any affected governmental unit and when the City uses the information obtained in the exchange to balance the needs of the citizens. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City engaged in an exchange about the subject of these amendments with all of the affected governmental units. Specifically, the City provided notice of the proposed action and opportunity to comment to Lane County, Springfield and the Department of Land Conservation and Development. There are no Goal 2 Exceptions required for these amendments. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with 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 conserve forest lands. The amendments are for property located within the urban growth boundary and do not affect any land designated for forest use. Therefore, Goal 4 does not apply. Goal 5 - Open Svaces. 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 conflicting 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 Qualitv. 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 Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. To Protect life and property from 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 Goal 9. Goal] 0 - Housing. To provide for 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 10. Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. The plan amendments do not effect the City's provision of public facilities and services. Therefore, (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. ATTACHMENTD MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Eugene City Hall, Council Chamber - 777 Pearl Street May 17,2005 6 p.m. PRESENT: 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 of the Eugene Planning Commission. 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 I 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 Goal 5 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 the amendment process had drawn limited response from the public, neighborhood groups, the development community and other groups. Mr. Lawless pointed out that the commission 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. Planning 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 oddly- shaped lots. He cautioned that the definition 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. Be 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 defmition 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 that was bisected by two streets that fortunately qualified under the old definition, but that 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 defmition allowed areas under common ownership 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 ifthere was any advantage to establishing a limit on the size ofthe 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 if the amendment would allow for expansion of a 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. EC 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 9.6610(1). Time period for election sign exemption MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission Public Hearing May 17,2005 Page 4 ) . . -) 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 signs 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 but 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. Ee 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 some 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 staffwould schedule a future meeting for further deliberations. Mr. Lawless adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 6:50 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) m:\2005lplanning and development departmentlplanning divisionlplanning commissionlpc050517ph.doc MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission Public Hearing . May 17,2005 Page 5 MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room-The Atrium Building-99 West 1 Oth Avenue .... -. -. - - - - - - John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President4t Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis#~ Mike Sullivan, ex officio member; Gabriel Flock, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrl1iiiKurt "iiiL Mike McKerrow, Planning and Development Department staff;~ NlcNeel, ~Works Department staff; Pat Zimmerman, State Citizen fuvolv~f1W~sory COInlumllli: Terry Connolly, Rob Handy, Zachary Vishanoff, Jim weJfI: guests. -=-- ",..... , ~ ~. ; ..- ~ ~ ~ "--=.. & ~ - - - ~~,., , -- - - - - - - - ~ - - - - , - - - - - - Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, commente'\.on an ~I the S~mber 12, 2005 Register Guard, regarding smart growth. He said smart gra&:th.SiS relaL\'J_~ilinent domain, corporate welfare, the smaller schools initiat~'T~ification. H~ed the PlaJftng Commission to initiate a smart growth discussion in the.Sinmuni~e suggested tlilt the Planning Commission read The Folly of Smart Growth, and ~ of the .ative Class. '" , '" ~ = ~ ~ =--. ~ Rob Handy, 455 Y2 River R~_ ~jl !IAJ;lninv~mmissioners for participating in the recent walking tour III'Uiiit_~f:ed Ra,,'~rk mixeu U'"""!!f'loject. He said the project was in the early stages of its matur~ process.~ -=-- 4iF ~ ~" ~ '~..............:!!!" Ms. t:;e,,_nked Mr. Han~ emails D'nad sent to the Planning Commission on the Rasor Park - -- project. - 1ii.;" - - - - - - ......... - - - - - - - - - - - APPROV A ~ MI#rES - May 23, June 28, and July 18, 2005 -- ~ - May 23, 2005 T · Ms. Colbath cotrected page 1, attendance to read: PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Anne Marie Levis, Randy Hledik, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio member; Susan Muir, Allen Lowe, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department staff. · Ms. Colbath corrected page 6, paragraph 4, sentence 2 to read: She suggested letting people donate their testimony time, as had been done at previous public hearings, to someone else to create an opportunity for longer testimony without going out of established guidelines. September 12,2005 11 :30 a.m. PRESENT: Mr. Lawless convened the meeting at 11 :38 a.m. I. June 28, 2005 MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 12, 2005 Page 1 · Mr. Lawless corrected the footers in the minutes. · Ms. Colbath corrected page 13, paragraph 3 to read: Ms. Colbath asked to have the hearing be held open through Tuesday, July 26,2005. · Ms. Colbath corrected page 13, paragraph 6, to read: She asked that the Planning Department consider applying the CAFHN proposal on a city wide basis. July 18, 2005 · Ms. Colbath corrected page 4, paragraph 2 to read: Ms. Colbath wa*.to ensure that the coun- cil knew that they had the option versus saying this was what we...!FOlutel'y believed ought to be done. ...=.. - -- -- - - - - Ms. Colbath, seconded by Ms. !-e, move(l!!.:ove the May 23, June 28, and July 18, 200511lifiks aamende motion passed . ~.-.,~ ~ unammously,7:0. ..='. ~ 41' ~ - - ~ ~ ~-; ~ ~ ~ ...-' -~...... ~ II. DELIBERATION/ACTION: MINOR LAND uS, ~ IOD~NDMENTS'A 04-4) -- - - Mr. Nystrom reported that no new informa~n had been received l<jJlI~e the May 17,2005 Planning Commission public hearing. He said follow~ public hearing,~;I Qmmission did not direct staff to make any specific changes to the proposed or~1M1 W HIlt did leave op~endment related to rowhouse lot width. , ";""' ',' Mr. Nystrom said staffpropo~amendment t~~60 re_lot width for rowhouse lots in R- 1. Staff had proposed 18 :6d ~J~nimum lot Wliih. While tliS figure would likely account for typical rowhouse desi~ffackriu1Ylldged that theacould still be some rowhouse designs that would be as narrow as 15 feet; rUn! ~ there. no ability to ~ an adjustment review for lot width in the R- 1 zone, a reduction below tit.. Ii fOO.- .~. ement coul _ ly be considered through a variance applica- tion, PUD or cl~ubdivis~ .~ ~~tA~r. Lawless asked staff and the commission to consider es~" ,j'~'! j toot 10liiith. Mr. Nyst;om asked the Planning Commission to provide directi01#this matter--- -=- 4!IIJi ~~. ~ Mr. !t'[ySCl!19IU ~aid that except 1,,1 a few rn'JB6r clean-up edits, the ordinance attached to the agenda packet for today's 1 ~g was the sa@s thafieviewed at the May 17, 2005 public hearing. - - - - - - Mr. Lawless said ~1'I1Il" he still fejihat the 18 foot requirement would make it more difficult to be more creative and compa~ h.ng designs. -- - - Ms. Colbath said the co~ssion had been striving to provide situations where housing could be more compact, and Mr. Lawless' proposal offered that opportunity. Ms. Levis, seconded by Ms. Colbath moved to change the rowhouse lot standards to establishing a 15 foot lot width rather than an 18 foot lot width. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Lawless facilitated a review of 80 Proposed Minor Code Fixes included in the agenda packet. The proposed changes were reviewed on an exception basis. MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 12,2005 Page 2 EC 9.0500 · In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Nystrom said the proposed language allowed for certain types of conifers to be included as allowable types of canopy trees. He said the current definition prohib- ited all conifers. · In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. McKerrow said the change would allow Ponderosa Pine and Douglas-fir trees to be used. - - - - Table 9.2170 ~.., EC 9.2171(5)(c) A. · In response to Mr. Lawless, Mr. Nystrom said this was inte~ tt'Jt!1..!n a gap between the current code language for C-l and C-2. He added 60 perc'- wasndi"imf~ntific, but rather a rea- sonable option. Mr. Nystrom affirmed Mr. Lawless' 5l~f&nn~ that fl~;~ pedestrian amenities still applied. .4fJff'" ' -=- I' ----. _ - - EC2761(5) ~..~. ... A · In response to Mr. Lawless, Mr. Nystrom repiied dl~ll~ ~~e e~tv.n to maximum.Jffi size would be granted through the adjustment review process. ~ '" . - - :..... ~ EC9.5350 -. . _ · Mr. Lawless stated this change was irlilill~d lJ~the City Coun~ "-result of concerns about parking for home occupations on flag l5!i. 111. I rlid not peri'iiPhome occupations on flag lots. Mr. Nystrom affirmed Mr. Lawles~tate~. Jloi~ c.J was very explicit with this, as well as many other st::tn.d.arc1s related to fl~~nd tha~ajustments or variances were al- lowable. Mr. La~~ "'. 1 j;jled frustratioriKat such a bliiiket statement would assume that every home bu~s woul~rate a signifi\nt amount of traffic, noting that many types of home busineC5'e~ - 'ld not g'iJ;rate any traffi~ · Ms. Colbath said s1iiiias a~f a half-way lj\iSe that provided housing for twelve residents and a da" r"'r~ center Oi.:b. llIii~ . 1 ~ 1fthese types of home occupations would be pro- hi~ "'11 ulillllb.under. o~o~ed statmar~s. Mr. Nystrom explained tha~ federal and state I.aS'S addresse~ unIt (fiiiiptions. He saId the examples Ms. Colbath cIted would not be _~ ,sidered home Ou tions,~ld typically require conditional use permits. .. ~lbath asked if"lfiip.esses j1Et did not generate traffic, such as accounting firms, were pro~ under the cdii Mr. Nystrom said the City Council wanted a tight regulation on non- reside~ 'se on flag III. Mr. McKerrow stated that response to this type of code violation was complain~. if · Ms. Levis SUg te~ the Planning Commission advise the City Council that the council needed to more 'IFOughly review issues related to flag lots that could not be addressed in the minor code fixeij5rocess. In a straw poll, the commission voted 6:1, with Mr. Belcher abstain- ing,.to forward that suggestion to the City Council. EC 9.5800(5)(b) · Mr. Hledik questioned why limitations should be placed on temporary uses in commercial zones. Mr. McKerrow explained the current language could allow a continuous parking lot sale, adding that typical parking lot events used parking spaces. The City Council intent was to allow for spe- cial events but not continuous events, noting that the proposed code language of allowing three special events annually met the comments and intent of the City Council. Mr. Hledik stated that MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 12,2005 Page 3 the proposed language was too restrictive. Mr. Sullivan said if parking was the issue, downtown was a parking exempt zone, and questioned how the code would be interpreted for downtown businesses. · In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. McKerrow said the current code language was not clear on the definition oftemporary use. Mr. McKerrow said that special events rather than an accessory use would be the standard under which the code would be interpreted, noting that enforcement of this would be complaint based. · Ms. Colbath stated that proposed changes to EC 9.5800(5)(b) shoul<lat be included in the list as the language was very clear. Mr. Nystrom said because the code ~ua~was ambiguous, a lib- eral interpretation could allow for virtually constant temporary...., · Ms. Levis proposed flagging this issue for the City Counci1.,#a J~nt that three times annu- ally was the maximum number of events permitted. She sdijested tJiHi 'lle Chamber of Com- merce may want to ask retailers to provide feedback (l~is jjtpposed c~. In a straw poll, the commission voted 7:0 to forward the suggestion toJleCit)rCouncil that h. nncil take a more in-depth look at this issue, noting that the co~n had ~ consensus on Ii~any...times a year temporary uses in commercial zones wey- Dfopriat~ _ - ~ ~--~ F EC 9.6105(4) table ~... "!" EC 9.6410 (table) ;".. ~ · Mr. Hudspeth asked for clarificatiolf"f;! the difference betwltH long term and short term bicycle parking. Mr. McKerrow said long teI'~lui was intended~oyees, and included safety features such as lighting and enclosed Sl!ces. . ~ I t tp,rm parkin~enerally consisted of a bicy- cle rack, was intended for customers, anaa.equir~li' I 1 ....at~iiear the main entrance of bus i- nesses. Mr. McKerro~ the code curr~#d not It;*- signage to distinguish between employee and CUS1lJ:lltI P:~g. Mr. HudsJlh asked if aIj employer feedback had been re- ceived in sUPP<ST opposi'fiiito the propos,"language, and expressed concern that providing secure bicyck ~ couldiia burden to so~sinesses. ~ is. ... . -.-.... --.... , - -- EC 9.6610(1) . . -::.::- . -- . M~~_.li~l~ssed cljlll1l11 fI that thls~sion would clarify that election dates in other Fties do no"Riii'Qr for ~mption. .... ~ ~.. ~ ....-. -.-... ..... - -- ~ -.-.~. EC 9:67U'. --- , Y . In rClIl'Anse to Ms. Coli., Mr. Nystrom said the proposed change in the code language was inten~onform to pges in the federal law, which the city was required to adhere to. - - - - - - - - ~ ;Ms. Colbath, seconded by Mr. Hledik moved to recommend to the City _-Council to approve the draft ordinance amending Chapter 9 of the T Eugene Code dated August 26,2005, as amended, with clarifications . discussed at the September 12, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Muir thanked the Planning Commissioners for their work on the minor land use code amendments. Ms. Levis said staff did a very good job on developing the language and explaining it to commissioners. MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 12,2005 Page 4 , . ~ Home Builders ASSOCIATION of Lane County ATI'ACHMENT E 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 9.276 I (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-l 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 permits a permanent sign for a manufactured dwelling park. 2053 Laura Street Springfield, OR 974n (541) 484-5352 FAX: (541) 484-5386 " 9.6730(4) 9.6745 9.6810(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 PUD 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, /~)(~ ~~ Roxie Cuellar Director of Government Affairs