HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3: Action - Minor Land Use Code Amendments
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Action:
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: November 28, 2005 Agenda Item Number: 3
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Steve Nystrom
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-8385
ISSUE STATEMENT
The City Council is scheduled to take action on an ordinance concerning amendments to the Land Use
Code (Chapter 9).
BACKGROUND
The City Council held a public hearing on this item on Monday, October 24, 2005. The council raised
several questions regarding various proposed amendments. Staff has provided responses to these
questions in two separate pieces of correspondence, both of which are attached. This includes an e-mail
response to Councilor Bettman’s questions raised prior to the hearing, dated October 28, 2005, as well
as a memo to the mayor and council responding to questions raised at the hearing.
Following the close of the public hearing, the council left the record open for a week to allow submittal
of additional testimony. Staff received two pieces of testimony, which are attached. Response to public
testimony has also been included in the attached memo.
At the public hearing, staff identified three amendments which could arguably increase property value.
Staff’s response to council questions has identified a fourth amendment. They are as follows:
?
#5: Legal lot definition: Based on the date deed is signed, rather than the date deed is recorded.
?
#22: Rowhouse lot width: Provides necessary (reduced) lot width requirement for rowhouse lots.
?
#42: Wholesale parking: Corrects inadvertent increase in parking requirement.
?
#44: Parking Structure landscaping: Modifies landscape standard for parking structures along
interior yards.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051128\S0511283.doc
Staff would ask the council to determine if these specific amendments should be eliminated due to their
potential benefit in property value.
The council identified specific amendments which posed concern, as written. In response, staff is
recommending revisions to the following proposed amendments:
?
#14; 9.2173(10)(c)
: Ground floor window exemption related to loading docks: Revised
language would limit the extent of the exemption.
?
#21; 9.2760(table)
: Conflict between 16,000 sq. ft. requirement for fourplex lots and 13,500 sq.
ft. maximum lot size: Revised language requires at least a duplex to ensure adequate density.
?
#57; 9.6810(4)
: Exception to 600 ft. block length requirement: Revised language limits the
extent of the exception.
?
#59; 9.6820(4)
: Cul-de-sac standards: Revision would add back EC 9.6820(4) which limits the
length of cul-de-sacs to no more than 400 feet.
?
Section 74
: Reference to attached figures: Revised language references all attached figures that
are either being amended or added.
The attached memo from staff provides the specific proposed revisions to each of the code amendments
listed above. In addition, staff has attached draft motions which address these revisions.
As the council deliberates on the proposed amendments, staff recommends that the council first
determine which amendments, if any, should be eliminated from consideration. Following that, staff
would ask the council to consider adoption of the ordinance with the recommended revisions listed
above.
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, direct staff to modify the ordinance or
deny the ordinance.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends adoption of the Minor Code Amendments with revisions recommended
by staff in this council packet.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to adopt 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
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051128\S0511283.doc
9.8720 of the Eugene Code, 1971; adding sections 9.8335 and 9.8580 to that code; and providing
effective dates.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Motions
B. Draft Ordinance and Findings
C. Matrix of proposed amendments
D. E-mail response to Councilor Bettman’s questions
E. Memorandum responding to Council questions and public testimony
F. Written testimony received after public hearing, prior to close of record
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\M051128\S0511283.doc
ATTACHMENT A
STAFF RECOMMENDED MOTIONS
Legend:
Deletions from 9/27/05 draft shown in hold itflUe underline
Additions to 9/2 7/05 draft shown in bold ttolt!,. ((()uhle underline
(9/27/05 draft is located at pages 354 - 409 of the 10/24/05
Council Packet)
Motions:
I move that Council Bi1l4910 be amended as follows:
A. Amend Ordinance Section 5. to revise Subsection (lO)(c) ofE.C. Section 9.2173 to
provide:
9.2173
Commercial Zone Development Standards - larQe Commercial
Facilities.
(10) Exterior Wall Articulation, Facades, and Ground Floor Windows.
(c) Except for building walls (with loading docks orl facing 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. For a waif
with a loadina dock. the walllenath referred to in subsection
(tOUcH.. below. shall exclude the wall area affiliated with the
loadinaand unloadina of freiaht.
B. Amend Ordinance Section 13. to revise the entry for Fourplex Lots in E.c. Table 9.2760
to provide:
:jliiij~~@"lillimtli1f,~1~
Staff Motions - 1
Table 9.2760 Residential Zone Lot Standards
(See EC 9.2761 Special Standards for Table 9.2760.)
R-1 R-1.5 R-2 R-3 R-4
Fourplex Lots (In R-1, lots 16,000 -- -- -- --
shall be indicated on the final square feet
subdivision plat and [sM-U]
may be developed as a
fourplex, triplex, QC duplex[;.
_. _:__1_ #:^_:tu'~ .. .)
C. Amend Ordinance Section 40. to revise Subsection (4) ofE.C. Section 9.6810 to provide:
9.6810
Block Lem:Jth. Block length for local streets shall not exceed 600 feet.
unless [the developer demonstr3tes that a block length must be gre3tor than
600 feet because of the existence of] an exception is granted based on
one or more of the following [conditions]:
(4) As part of a Type II or Type 111 process, the developer
demonstrates that a strict aoolication of the 600-foot reauirement
would lthel resultli:!Hll in a street network [will not create
eX-6eSsive fravellenplhs andl that is no more beneficial to
vehicular. oedestrian or bicvcle traffic than the proQosed street
network and that the DTODosed street network will accommodate
necessary emergency access.
D. Amend Ordinance Section 42 to revise E.C. Section 9.6820 to provide:
9.6820
Staff Motions - 2
Cul~e-Sacs or Emerqencv 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 f-or an exception under section (1) because it] will
be extended in the future, a temporary easement shall be provided and
an emergency vehicle turnaround shall be constructed[...J.R...a.R
alternative location].
(3) [If a street qualifies for an exception under section (1), a hammerhead
turnaround shall be substituted where possible.
(4)] There shall be no cul-de-sacs more than 400 feet lona from the
centerline of the intersectina street to the radius ooint of the cul-
de-sac bulb.
(5.4) [The planning director shall require pJPublic 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[...te
provide safe, convenient, and direct circlJlation for pedestrians,
bicyolists, and emergency vehicles].
(6~ As part of a Type II or Type III process, an exception {adjustmeRt]
may be granted to the requirements of (1)J1l and (4~) of this section if
[consistent \\4th the critoria for adjustment of EC 9.B030( 12)(b) of this
bnd 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.
E. Amend Ordinance Section 74 to provide:
Section 74. The attached Figure 9.0500 Lot Lines. Lot Frontage, Lot Width, Lot
Depth, Fiaure 9.2171(5) Maximum Front Yard Setback~. Buildina Orientation. and
Entrances and Industrial Corridor Map 9.7805 are hereby adopted as amendments of,
and replacements for, the existing Figure~ f9.05001 and Mapl [9.78051 and new Fiaure
9.0500 Curved Lot. and Flaure 9.0500 Lot Width are herebvadoDted.
Staff Motions - 3
ORDINANCE NO.
09/17/05
ATTACHMENT B
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, 9.2175, 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,
9.6820,9.6830,9.6870,9.6885,9.1015,9.7020, 9.7110,9.7605,9.7655,9.1805,
9.1885. 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 9.8120 OF THE
EUGENE CODE, 1911; 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 Ctearance 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
@
(f)
(J:;
@
Definitions. As used in this land use code, unless the context requires otherwise,
the following words and phrases mean:
Curved Lot. A lot having frontage on a street with a centerline radius of less
than 300' and a change in bearing 01 the centerline of at least 1Q 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 tots of record. For the purpose
of land use applications, development site shall also include [~]property under
common ownership or control that is bisected by a [~] street or alley[ shall be
considered one development site. unless the land '.%15 legally divided].
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 cellinglfJoor
connection. A buifding 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 (00108082) 1 O.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) Bya deed [recorded] that was signed before April 2, 1962.
Lot Width. The horizontal distance between (straight lines connecting front and
rear lot lines at each tide of the lot, moasured across the rear of the required front
yard setback] the midpoints of the side property Jines. Where more than one
side property line exists along a given side yard, the combined length of the
side properly lines shall be used to determine the midpoint. Atley 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 ot a lot Of 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, [a':erage] 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-ot-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 (00108082) 1O.DOC
(j)
@)
(j)
09/27/05
of the street. For aU 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
[Gl
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 Tabie 9.2170.
(5) The maximum front yard setbacks stated in Table 9.2170 Commercial Zone
Development Standards, shat! apply only to new buildings and any building
addition that increases the length of the building facade facing {tRe] 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 pornon 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 (00 108082) IO.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'l-ate way] accessway, private drivet 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 GOO" ofa/l street facing facades of the building must
be within the specified maximum front yard setback.
(Gel) 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.
(at) 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 amenityfor 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 (00 108082) 1 O.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.
(iiJ
(e) Stacking Lanes. Design of stacking lanes shall conform with the
requirements of EC [9.6420 ParkioQAre8 St~:mdards19.6415 Loading
and Drive- Throuah Desion Standards:
Section 5. The lead paragraph of Subsection (10)(c) of Section 9.2173 of the Eugene
Code, 1971, is amended to provide:
9.2113
Commercial Zone Development Standards - LarQe Commercial Facilities.
(10) Exterior Wall Articulation, Facades, and Ground Floor Windows.
@
(c) Except for building walls with loading docks or fating an altey, 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 Commerciai Facilities-Ground Floor Window
Calculation.) Solid walts 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
[Average] 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 (OOlOS082)lO.DQC
Curved Lot
Cul~de~sac Bulb
Flaq Lot
Table 9.2180 Commercial Zoning Lot Standards
(See EC 9.2181 Special Standards for Table 9.2180.)
C~ C4 C~ C~
35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet
35 feet 35 feet 35 f~et 35 feet
40 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
09/27/05
GO
35 feet
35 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:
@
Motorc cle SaleslRentaVService
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 vehicte travel from commercial! zoned land.
Structured Parking, up to two levels not directly related to a
imar use on the same develo ment site
Structured Parking, three or more levels not directly related
to a . rimar 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
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
SR
Ordinance - 6
C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK.4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor
Revisions (OOI08082)lO.DOC
p
p
p
P
P
P
p
P
P
P
P
p
p
P
09/27/05
@
Table 9.2450 Industrial Zone land Use and Permit Requirements
1-1 1.2 1-3
Pump Statton, 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 Tvoe " procedure that shows low visual impact
Telecommunication Tower or Facility (See EC 9.5750) S S S
Water Reservoir. elevated above Qround 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
Applicabilitv. 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 ~)eci~~~~~:~~~;:e~~~t~rd::~:rliJ:~; t:::~ijding 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)1O.DOC
0.9/27/05
feet of the boundary of an abutting residential zone is limited to the height
allowed in [aR] the abutting residential zone[ when located 'Nithin 50 feet of the
boundary anne residential zone].
Section 11. The "Average Width Minimum" heading in Table 9.2686 is amended to
provide:
9.2686 Public Land Zone Lot Standards. The following Table 9.2686 sets forth lot
standards in the PL public land zone. The numbers in () indicate special
development standards contained in EC 9.2687.
---------~
~:;~~=1
50 feet ~11:
35 feet _
35 feet!
--- no 40 feet!
_.._____L.........__u
Table 9.2686 Public Land Zone Lot Standards
(See 9.2687 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2686.)
@
[Average] Width Minimum (1)
Interior Lot
~____________o____
t~:~ Corner Lot
Curved Lot
.m-2.ca-de-sac Bulb
_____n Flag Lot (2)
Section 12. Subsection (3) of Section 9.2741 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by
adding a new Subparagraph (d) thereto, to provide:
Special Use Limitations for Table 9.2740.
(3) Rowhouses. In R~1.5, rowhouses shall comply with all of the following:
@ (el) Siting requirements of EC 9.2735.
9.2741
Section 13. Table 9.2760 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide:
9.2760
Residential Zone Lot Standards. The following Table 9.2760 sets forth residential
zone lot standards, subject to the special standards in EC 9.2761.
Ordinance w 8
C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor
Revisions (OOl08082)10.DOC
@
@
09/27/05
Table 9.2760 Residential Zone Lot Standards
See EC 9.2761 S ecial Standards for Table 9.2760.
R.1 R-1.5 R-2 R-3
4,500 4,500 4,500
square feet square feet square feet
Lots, except Rowhouse Lots,
Small lots, Duplex lots,
Triplex Lots, Fourplex Lots,
Residential Flag lots, Duplex
Division Lots
Small Lots (2)
Rowhouse Lots (3)
(Rowhouse lots shall be
indicated on the final
subdivision plat and shall be
develo ed with a rowhouse.
Duplex Lots (In R-1, lots shall
be indicated on the final
subdivision plat and [sHaH]
may be developed as a
duplex or single family
dwelling or may be located on
corner lots that contain at least
8.000 s uare feet.
Triplex Lots (tn R-1, lots Shall
be indicated on the final
subdivision plat and [sRaUJ
may be developed as a
triplex, duplex, or single
famil dwellin .
Fourplex Lots (tn R-i, lots
shall be indicated on the final
subdivision plat and (sRaU]
may be developed as a
fourplex, triplex, duplex, or
sin Ie famll dwellin .
Residential Flag lot (4)
(Existing lot shall be at least
13,500 s uarefeet.
Duplex Division lots (8)
(Existing lot shall be at least
8,000 s uare feet.
Per Cluster
Subdivision
or PUD
1,600
square feet
8,000
square feet
12.000
square feet
16,000
square feet
6,000
square feet
3,600
square feet
1,600
square
feet
R4
4,500
square feet
2,250
square feet
or per
Cluster
Subdivision
or PUD
1,600
square feet
2,250
square feet
or per
Cluster
Subdivision
or PUD
1,600
square feet
2,250
square feet
or per
Cluster
Subdivision
or PUD
1,600
square feet
6,000 6,000 6,000
square feet square feet square feet
3,600 3,600 3,600
square feet square feet square feet
20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
25 feet 25 feet 25 feet
15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
@
Interior Lot
Comer lot
Curved Lot
Cul.de-sac Bulb Lot
Residential Fla Lot 4
1 Lot
2 to 4 Lots
RowhouseLot
50 feet
50 feet
35 feet
35 feet
15 feet
25 feet
15 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
15 feet
Ordinance - 9
C:\Docurnents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor
Revisions (OOl08082)lO.DOC
09/17/05
@
@
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 Special 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) 13,500
(New subdivisions and partitions square feet
onl
Duplex
See EC
9.2741 4
See EC
9.2741 5
See EC
9.2741 6
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 shat! be granted if any of the following is
met:
(a)
Existing physical circumstances such as topographically constrained
lands, conservation easements, existing buildings, or utility easements
prevent the ability to further divide the tot.
(b) The lot exceeding the maximum tot size is intended to reserve a large lot
for future land division with feasibility demonstrated by a conceptual
buitdout 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 towest number.
@
@
(6)
Section 15. Subsection (1) and (2){a) of Section 9.2775 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are
amended to provide:
9.2775 Residential FlaQ Lot Standards for R-1.
(1) Purpose. Residential flag lots allow lots to be created in cases where there is
adequate lot area to divide the property into 2 or more lots but not enough
street frontage to meet the standard minimum requirement and wherecreatton
Ordinance - 10
C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor
Revisions (00 1 08082) 1 O.DOC
09/27/05
(2)
(LL)
of a street is not necessary to meet connectivity standards. The standards
require access for fire protectionf and also require screeaingto protect the
privocy of abutting residences]. The intent is to provide additional housing
opportunities and to promote the efficient use of residential land. Home
occupations and secondary dwellings are prohibited because of limited access
and the greater impacts these uses would place on abutting sites.
Measurements.
(a) Flag Lot Dimensions. Residential flag lot [average] width dimension is
measured from the mid-point between two opposite lot lines of the flag
portion of the tot.
@
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) Slol-Ws. 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 [SGYttl] 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 WestsideSpecial Area Zone Lot Standards. The following
Table 9.3220 sets forth lot standards within the S-DW Zone. The numbers in ( ) are
references to special limitations that are set forth in EC 9.3221.
@
Table 9.3220 S~DW Downtown Wests ide Special Area Zone Lot Standards
S.DW
] Width Minimum
Interior Lot (1) 20 feet
Comer Lot (1 ) 20 feet
Curved Lot (1) 20 feet
Atley 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 RovalNode Special Area Zone lot Standards. The following Table 9.3822
sets forth lot standards within the S~RN zone. The numbers in () are references to
special limitations that are set forth in EC 9.3823.
Ordinance - 11
C:\Documentsand Settings\ceplsan\Loca1 Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor
Revisions (00108082) lO.DOC
@
40 feet 40 feet
40 feet 20 feet
50 feet 50 feet
50 feet 20 feet
30 feet 30 feet
30 feet 20 feet
Other Residential lot
30 feet,
Duplex
Onl
30 feet
09/27/05
20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
20 feet
20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
20 feet
20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
20 feet
20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
20 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 clal 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. Requirements.
Within the NVP overlay zone there are 2 categories of uses: those allowed by the
base zone or special area zone outside of the /wP area, and a more restrictive list
of uses allowed within the MJP area.
Ordinance - 12
C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor
Revisions (OOl08082)lO.DOC
@
@
09/17/05
(3)
Uses Permitted Within IWPAreasSubject to Site Review. Within /WP
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 DeveloQment 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 I\NP area describing the nature and
extent of the activities 15 days prior to commencing the activities.
(e) Wetland or riparian area enhancement, restoration or creation activities
that are consistent with adopted plans and policies, including
construction of stormwater quality treatment facilities that use
biofiltration methods, such as shallow grassy swales, constructed
wetlands, and ponds. Subject to EC 9.2530 Natural Resource Zone
Development Standards (2) through (9).
(f) Wetland, stream and riparian enhancement and restoration within
the /WP overlay zone shall be exempt from the site review
requirements of this subsection (3) if the proposed activity is
authorized:
1. Under a Mitigation Improvement Plan approved by the
Oregon Department of State Lands, and if required, the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers;
2. Under a wetland restoration permit or wetland enhancement
permit approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands,
and if required, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; or
3. Bya UFlnding of No Significant Impact" or a "Record of
Decisionlt 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 (OO108082)lO.DOC
9.4830
09/27/05
/WB Wetland Buffer Overlav Zone land Use. and Permit Reaulrements. Within
the IWB overlay zone, there are 2 categories of uses: those aHowed by the base
zone or special area zone outside of the f\NB 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 DevetoQment 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 f\NB
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 traits 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 (00 1 08(82) 1 O.DOC
to provide:
9.5250
@
09/17/05
@
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 requiredJ the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers;
b. Under a wetland restoration permit or wetland
enhancement permit approved by the Oregon
Department of State LandsJ and if required, the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers; or
c. By a oFinding of No Significant Impacf' 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 aflowed 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 [1ets-efJ 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 aU residential zones] shalt 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 (S){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) to.DOC
I~'W""
{~'2 ~
\~~oh....~.l
f.3~
~y
09/17/05
(8)
Site Landscaping.
(a) Minimum Landscape Area. landscaping is required according to the
applicable base zone minimum landscape area standards. If there are
none specified, the minimum landscape area shall be [the percentage of
the 3rea not permitted as part of the lot coverage) equal lathe amount
of area required as open space spect'fied in EO 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, jf 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
shaH be [2{}] 15 feet.
(c) Open Space Credit.
1. An open space credit, not to exceed 25 percent of the total open
space requirement, may be applied toward compliance with that
requirement, for developments that are located within one~quarter
mile of a public parle
2. Required setback areas and areas required to comply with
perimeter parking lot landscape standards may be applied toward
the minimum open space requirements when the minimum
dimension of such space is [2GJ15 feet or greater.
Section 25. Subsections (6)(a)10. and (6)(b)11. of Section 9.5750 of the Eugene Code,
1971, are amended to provide:
9.5750
Telecommunication Devices..sitina Reauirements and Procedures.
(6) Application Requirements.
(a) Collocation of Antennas. In addition to standard required application
material. an applicant for collocation of antennas shall submit the
following information; additional application material is required. as
specified in paragraph (c) below, for applications requiring a site review
or conditional use process.
10. Documents demonstrating that the FAA has reviewed and
Ordinance - 16
C;\I)ocuments and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor
Revisions (OO108082)1O.DOC
09/17/05
(b)
approved the proposal, and the Oregon {A~ronoutics Division]
Department of Aviation has reviewed the proposal.
Alternatively, when a site review or conditional use process is
required. submit a statement documenting that.notice of the
proposal has been submitted to the FAA and Oregon [Aeronautics
Division] Department of Aviation. The site review or conditional
use process may proceed and approval may be granted for the
proposal as submitted, subject to FAA approval. If FAA approval
requires any changes to the proposal as initially approved, then
that initial approval shall be void. A new application will need to
be submitted, reviewed and approved through an additional site
review or conditional use process. No development permit
application shall be submitted without documents demonstrating
FAA review and approval and Oregon ~A,eron3utics Division]
Department of A viatlon 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:
@
t;;s\'
\.2:,,.../
11. Documents demonstrating that the FAA has reviewed and
approved the proposal, and Oregon [Aeronautics Division]
Department of Aviation has reviewed the proposal.
Alternatively, when a site review or conditional use process is
required, submit a statement documenting that notice of the
proposal has been submitted to the FAA and Oregon [Aeronautics
Division] Department of Aviation. The site review or conditional
use process may proceed and approval may be granted for the
proposal as submitted, subject to FAA approval. If FAA approval
requires any changes to the proposal as initially approved, then
that initial approval shall be void. A new application will need to
be submitted, reviewed and approved through an additional site
review or conditional use process. No development permit
application shall be submitted without documents demonstrating
FAA review and approval and Oregon {l\eronautics 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. AU 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 (00 1 08082) 1 RDOC
@
@
@)
09/27/05
(5)
Zone Category and Duration.
(b) The standards for temporaryactivitles in areas in the broad zone
category of commercial, industrial, or special (except S~H zones) are as
follows:
1. Parking Lot Sales. Parking lot sales in zones where outdoor
merchandise display is.not otherwise permitted are allowed for up
to 2 consecutive weeks [at any 1 time] on 3 different occasions
during a calendar year.
2. Fairs and Carnivals. Fairs and carnivals are allowed for up to 2
consecutive weeks [at any.1 time] on 3 different occasions
during a calendar year.
(in
......_.~
Section 27. The entries for "Baltet, Dance, and Gymnastic School/Academy/Studio" and
"Library" under the Education, Cultural. Religious, Social and Fraternal category of Table
9.6105(4) of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended. and an entry for "Office Equipment and
Supplies" is added in alphabetical order under the Trade (Retail and Wholesale) category, to
provide:
9.6105
Bicvcle ParkinQ 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%1 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\Ternporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor
Revisions (OOI08082)10.DOC
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 ParkinQ Standards.
(3) Minimum Number of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces. . Except as
provided in this section, or in an adjustment pursuant to EC 9:8030(10) Motor
Vehicle Parking and Loading Standards Adjustment, the minimum number of
required off-street parking spaces shat! be calculated as provided in Table
9.6410 Required Off-Street Motor Vehicle Parking.
w
(d) When calculating the parking requirements for an outdoor
restaurant, up to 20 outdoor seats shall be exempt from the
calculations.
@)
@
Wholesale Trade {excluding regional distribution
center
1 per each [&6GJ 165(J 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
ParkinQ Area Standards.
(3)
landscape Standards.
(e) Interior Parking Area LandscaoinQ. [~l In addition to the landscaping
required in subsections (c) and (d). landscaping th!it meets the 700/0
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[~] improve the visual qualities of these areasf{~
@
Ordinance - 19
C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor
Revisions (00108082) 1 O.DOC
09/27/05
O]delineate and define circulation movements of motorists and
pedestrians,[~Jimprove air quality, and[.-4-li]encourage energy
conservation by moderating parking area microclimates.
1. Parking area landscaping shall be provided according to Table
9.6420(3)(e)[~] Interior Parking Area Landscaping.
Table 9.6420(3)(e} Interior Parking Area Landsca in
Total Number of Spaces in Minimum Interior Parking Area
Parking Area Landsca e Area
50 to 99 s aces 15 square feet er arkins ace
100 or more $ aces 22 square feet per parking space
@
2. A continuous landscape strip or raised pedestrian path shall be
provided between every 4 rows of parking. The landscape strip or
pedestrian path shall be a minimum of 7 feet in width, measured
from the outside edge of a 6 inch wide curb. (See Figure
9.6420(3)(e)2. Interior Parking Area Landscaping.)
3. Planting islands shalf be provided at the ends of each parking row
and at intervals within parking rows so that no parking stall is more
than 45 feet from a planting island. Planting islands shall be at least
7 feet in width, as measured from the outside edge of a 6 inch wide
curb, and a minimum area of 140 square feet. Each of these
islands shall provide at least 1 canopy tree. (See Figure
9.6420(3)(e)3. Parking Area Interior Planting Islands.)
(f) Structured Parking.
1, Along the perimeter of the non-commercial portion of structured
parking, a landscape strip, a minimum of 5 feet in width, shall be
provided between the property line and the structure wall.
Perimeter landscaping along interior yardS is exempt from this
requirement, if the proposed structure will be less than 15'
from an existing structure measured across the common
interior property line. This standard does not apply to property
lines abutting an 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
Exemntions. 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:
@
fMaUl VendinQ in Downtown Activity Area. Signs, including portable
signs, for [maUl Downtown Activity permits issued per private commerce on
public property (Administrative Rute R.3.336).
Signs During Elections. Signs 12 square feet or less in area, located on
Ordinance - 20
C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor
Revisions (00 1 08082) 1 O.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
Civ
Prohibited Signs. 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 andwaming 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 CitvManaQer. Authority to Set Fees and
Charges. . When a person begins construction of a sign requiring a sign permit
before[such 3] the permit is [appf0veG] 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 [wRefe
vehicular, bicycle and~edestri3n travel intersect] as specified in EC
9.6780 Vision Clea~nce Area. (See also EC 9.6255 Vision Clearance
Area Landscaping.)
Section 34. Subsection (3)(c), of Section 9.6650 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended
to provide:
9.6650
Residential Sh::m 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.
(0
(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 SiQn .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 veh.icular 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 [, andshalij require a
revocable permit under Chapter 7 of this code, unless the projections
are required byEC 9.4085(7).
1. Awnings and marquees may project a maximum of 7 feet into the
public right-of-way.
2. Projecting signs may project a maximum of 4.5 feet into the public
right-of-way.
3. No sign may project into a public right-of-way to a point within 2
feet of the vertical plane of any street (curb face), alley or
driveway.
4. No sign may project into an aUey clearance area. The "aUey
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 comer 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 (00 108(82) IO.DOC
9.6709
@
09/17/05
Special Flood Hazard Areas.. Standards.
(1) General Standards. hall 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 aU 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 [Of] a minimum of one foot above the base flood elevation.
(e) Shallow Floodino Areas * With Depth Designations. Shallow flooding
zones appear on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), with depth
designations, wherever such flooding occurs on sloping water surfaces
such as aHuvial 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 f1oodproofed 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 andSettings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor
Revisions (OOl08082)lO.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 Jot, 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
buitding street frontage.
5. Balconies with a maximum depth of 10 feet are permitted to
project into required yaros that abut streets.
6. Bay windows cantilevered from the first floor, provided they
do not exceed 8 feet in width.
Ordinance - 24
C:\Documents aud Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Tempotary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor
Revisions (00 108082) 1 O.DOC
",<-~'''''''''
li::;~' '}
~- /
,w.~."..,
9.6805
@
09/27/05
(c) Signs conforming to all other applicable provisions of this code.
Freestanding signs 5 feet high or less are aflowed in the {30 fooij front
yard setback [in the I 1 zone] when located at least 5 feet from the front
property line.
Section 39. Section 9.6805 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide:
Dedication of Public Ways. As a condition of any development, the city may
require dedication of public ways for bicycle and/or pedestrian use as well as for
streets and alleys, provided the city makes findings to demonstrate consistency with
constitutional requirements. ~]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 ways for
bicyofe and pedestrian use to he dediC3ted to the public by tho applicant shall be at
least 20 feet in width.]
Section 40. The first paragraph of Section 9.6810 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is
amended, and a new Subsection (4) is added thereto. to provide:
9.6810
@
provide:
9.6815
Block LenQth. Block length for local streets shall not exceed 600 feet, unless [the
developer demonstrates that a block length must be greater than 600 feet because
of the existenGe of] an exception is granted based on one or more of the following
[conditions]:
(4) As part of a Type /I or Type III 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
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)
[te-(e1) through (f) of this subsection.
(b) The proposed development shall include street connections in the
direction of all existing or planned streets within 1/4 mite of the
development site. The proposed development shaH also include street
connections to any streets that abut, are adjacent to, or terminate at the
development site. [Secondary 3ccess for fire and emergency medical
vshictes 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\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minot
Revisions (00 108082) 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.
(sf) In cases where a required street connection would result in the
extension of an existing street that is not improved to city standards and
the street has an inadequate driving.surface, the developer Shall
construct a temporary barrier at the entrance to the unimproved street
section with provision for bicycle, pedestrian, and emergency vehicle
access. The barrier shalt 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 (tt-lis] subsections
(2)(b), (c) or (d) [may be adjusted if consistent with the criteri:3of EC
9.8030( 12)(a) of this land useooda.] 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 vacantlats 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 {OOI08082)lO.DOC
09/27/05
Section 42. Section 9.6820 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide:
9.6820
@
Cul~de..Sacsor Emeroencv Vehicle Turnarounds.
(1) Except for streets that are jess 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 exception under section (1) because it) will be
extended in the futUre, a temporary easement shall be provided and an
emergency vehicle turnaround shall be constructed[ in an oltemative
10catioAl.
(3) [If a street qualifio~ for an exeeption under section (1), a hammerhead
turnaround shall be substituted whore possible.
(4) There shan be no cuI de sacs more than 400 feet long from the centerline of
the intersecting street to the radius point of the cuI de sac Db/lb.
(5) The planning director shall require p]PubUc 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 whenh] 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, convenient, and direct circulatien for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and emergency '{ehicles].
(64) As part of a Type II or Type II/process, an exception [adjustment] may be
granted to the requirements of (1) and (43) of this section inconsistent with
the criteria for adjustment of EC 9.S030(12)(b) of this laRd 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
provide:
9.6830 Intersections of Streets and Allevs.
(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 shalt 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 (00 1 08082) to.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-ot-
Way map. When a street segment right-at-way width is not designated on the
Street Right-of-Way map, the required street width shall be the maximum shown tor
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 tor 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-of-Way and Pavina Widths
Type of Street or Alley Right-of-Way . Paving Width
(for Public Streets and Allevs only)
Maior Arterials 100'- 120' 68' - 94'
Minor Arterials 65' -100' 46'70'
Maior Collector 60' - 75' 32' -44'
Neklhborhood Collector 40'55' 20' - 43'
Bicycle and Pedestrian Accessway:
With Fire Accessibility 20' 20'
Without Fire Accessibilitv 10' 10'
Local Streets
Alley (secondarv accessT on Iv 14' rW112'
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 f47148.5" 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 [these] shan 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 (00108082) lO.DOC
a;u
~.
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. {\Nlthin 10 €lays of the m~mng of a notice of missiAg
information, the applicaRt shall submit to the city a '.witten statement indiooting eithor
an intent to submit the missing information or a refusal to submit the missing
infor~tion.] 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 [tRe44~ day after mailiAg the notice of missing information 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 18151 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/his section.
Section 47. Section 9.7020 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide:
{Waiver to] Extension of Time Limit Restrictions. Upon the written request of
[+Jthe applicant (may] submitted to the planning director, [3 st3wment 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=.A eal Review Authori
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 (00108082) 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:
. Unimoroved Easement
- Undevelooed Plat
- Unimproved Public
Right- of-way, Improved
public Easements
- Vacation and Re-
dedication of Unimproved
Public Right-of-wav
- Vacation of Improved
Public Right-of-way, and
vacation of any pubic
way acquired with public
funds
I
fNt
II
o
o
o
A
II
o
A
WI
o
Section 49. Section 9.7110 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide:
(0J
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
9.7110
"Vacation."
Table 9.7405 T
T e IV lications
Refinement Plan Amendment, Site S acmc Chan e
Street Name Chan e
[V-acation of lmpro\'~d Public Right of way, vacation of public right of 'Nay
acquired with public funds. and vacation of undeveloped subdivision a1'la
partition plats. ioclllding public right of W-3y and improved public
easements located therein
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)10.DOC
9.7605
@
provide:
9.7655
@
09/27/05
Fmna of Appeal of PlanninaDirector's Decision.
(2) The appeal shall be submitted on a form approved by the city manager, [ami]
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 12h. 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 Eug.ene Code, 1971, is amended to
Filina of Appeal of Hearings Official or Historic Review Board Initial Decision.
(2) The appeal shall be submitted on a form approved by the city manager, [aoo}
be accompanied by a fee established pursuant to EC Chapter 2... and be
received by the city no later than 5:00p.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 bounded
on tho west by the.~ E.!gflurban growth boundary as of April 199 1, on the. east
by the Northwest ExpresSW3Y, OR the north by N::brey Lane, :lRd on the south by
Eugene's city limits as of April 1 t ~ 991 This 3rea is affected by]. particularly
described in Exhibit A to the Annexation and Urban Services Policy Agreement
dated April 25, 1991. See Map 9.7805 Industrial Corridor.
Section 55. Table 9.8010 of Section 9.8010 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to
Ordinance - 31
C:\Documems and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK.4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor
Revisions (00 108082) 1 O.DOC
09/27/05
9.8010
list of AdoQtedPlans. The documents listed in the following Table 9.8010,
inctuding 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~
@
South WilIamette Subarea Stud. - ~
TransPlan (Metro Area Transportation Plan)-
~
West Eu ene Wetlands Plan- 4-Wa
West University Refinement Plan-{4~1
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.. Aoproval 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 Disp/av 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:\Document$ and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor
Revisions (OOI08082)10.DOC
09/27/05
(12)
adjusted, the standards may be adjusted upon finding the applicable
corresponding criteria are met.
(a) Number of Required Off~Street Parkinq 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 foUowing conditions exist:
a. The use of alternative modes of transportation, including
transit. bicydesr and walking, and/or special characteristics
of the customer, client, employee or resident population will
reduce expected vehide use and parking space demand for
this development, as compared to standard Institute of
Transportation Engineers vehicle trip generation rates and
minimum city parking requirements.
b. A proposed Transportation Demand Management (TOM)
Program has been approved by the city that contains
strategies for reducing vehicle use and 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 EC9.8030(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.
(streets, Alleys, and Other Public Way] Intersections of Streets and Alleys
Standards Adjustment. [I\s set out below ,speeific standards set forth in E C
9.9815 through 9.6830 pertaining to stFeets may be acijustod ifthe
corresJ!>GAding eriteria are met.
(a1 Street Connectivity Standards. As an alternative to compliance '~vitR the
standards of lie 9.6815(2) Street ConnecthMy StaFldards (a) (d). the
applicant may, at his or her expense. provide to the city a local street
connection study that demonstrates hO't: the proposed street system
@
@
@
Ordinance - 33
C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporaty Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor
Revisions (OOl08082)lO.DOC
09/27/05
@-'.
,,~r .
5~
meets the. intent of street connectivity provisions of this land use code ;]s
expressed in EC 9.6815(1), and howunde",efoped or partially devoloped
properties 'NUhin a quarter mile con be adequately served by alternative
street layouts. . Appro",;]l of the street connection study by the city shall
constitute an adjustment t<:l the standards of EC 9.6815(2). TAe
requirements of sUbparagraphs (b) and (c) rroy be adjusted if it is
demonstrated that a conneGtion cannot be made because of the
existence of one or more of the following conditions:
1. Physicol conditions preclude development of the conneGting
street. Such conditions moyinclude, but are not Iimit-ed to,
topography or.likely impaGt to natural resource areas such as
wetlands, ponds, streams, channels, rivers, lakes or upland
wildlife habit;]t areo,or a resource on the National 'Netland
Inventory or under proteotieo by stato or federal law
2. Buildings or ether existing de~:elopment on adjacent lands.
including previously subdivided but vacant lots or parcels,
physically preclude a connection now or in.the future,
considering the potential for redevelopment.]
[(b) Cui de Sacs.
1. An adjustment to the requirement of EC 9.6g~?O(1) m;]y be
granted if it is shown that topographic constraints, existing
development, or natural features prevent the construction of a
~
2; The limitation of 3400 foot m:Jximum length for a cui de sac in
EC 9.6820(4}m:JY be adjusted if all of the following conditions
~
3. The pRy-sical sh3pe of tho property prevents alternative
development patterns and there are no practiG:J1
alternative street layouts available th:lt '..vould meet street
oonneGtivity. .
b. The physical cGnditions of the property preclude the
ability to achieve the density permitted.aGoording to the
zoniRg of the property with a cui de saG ofenly 400 feet.
Such conditions may include, but are not limited to,
topography or the existense of natural resource areas
such:ls '.wUands, peRds, streams, channels, rivers,
lakes or upland v:ildlife habitat area, ora resoume on the
N3tiooal '.'VeUand Inventory or under protection by state
or feder:llla...",
(c) IntersectionStandaf€ls.] 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 skeet, 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 Sertings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor
Revisions (00108082) 10.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
~~~
(ji)
@
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 folfowing:
(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 let dimensions, solar standards,
and density requirements for the subject zone;
(0) fie 9.e500 through EC 9.6610 Public Improvement St::mdards; and
(e) EG 9.6800 through EC 9.6$75 Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways
Stand3rds.]
With the exception of density requirements,[+]the residential [lot aAG]
development standards of EC9.2750Resfdential Zone Development
Standards and EC 9.2751 SDecialDeve/oDment Standards for Table
9,2750 may be relaxed based on compliance with the remainder of the cluster
subdivision criteria. An {approved] exception or an adjustment to a
development standard [pursuant to the provisions beginning at lie 9.801501
this 13nd use code] constitutes compliance with the standard.
Section 58. Subsection (8)(c) of Section 9.8090 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended
to provide:
9.8090
Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria - General.. A conditional use permit
shall be granted only if the proposal conforms to aU 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 (OOl 08082) lO.DOC
@
to provide:
9.8215
(i2:J
"-.../
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) o.f Section 9.8215 of the Eugene Code, 1971. is amended
Partition. Tentative.Plan Approval Criteria- General. The pfanning director shall
appro.ve, approve with conditions, or deny a partition, with findings and conctusio.ns.
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 thro.ughEC [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 Pian ApprovalCriterJa- Needed Houslna. 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
fo.llowing 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 PUO
application shall identify the PUO project coordinator and the professional
design team and certify compliance with the following:
(a) Proiect Coordinator. The project coordinator shalt
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 Orego.n to practice architecture, civil
Ordinance - 36
C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor
Revisions (00 108082) 1 O.DOC
@
09/27/05
engineering, or landscape architecture.
The project coordinator, or at least one design team member, shall
attend all public meetings at which the proposal is discussed.
(b) Professional DesiQn Team Desionation. 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. ^ member of the J\mencan Institute of Certified Planners.]
Section 62. Subsection (5)(a) of Section 9.8320 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended
to provide:
9.8320
(~.rn
-~
Tentative Planned Unit OeveloDment Aoproval 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 [9.6870J 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys,
and Other Public Ways (not subject to 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 AJmrovalCriteria ... Needed Housing_ 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 aU 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 (00108082) 1 O.DOC
9.8335
@
9.8410
@
~
to provide:
9.8440
@;
to provide:
09/27/05
Modifications to AIJIJroved Tentative.P/annedUnit Deve/ollment. The
applicant may apply for a modification of the approved PUD tentative plan
following the Type 1/ 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
physica/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 LJne Adiustment Application ReQuirements. In addition to the
provisions in EC 9.7010 Application Filing, the following specific requirements shall
apply to property Une 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, aU 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 shalt 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 (00108082) lO.DOC
@
to provide:
9.8520
@
9.8580
@
09/27/05
(b) EC 9.6800 through EC [9.687Q19.6875 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 CriteriaM Needed Housina. The planning
director shall approve, conditionally approve, Of deny the subdivision application.
Unless the applicant elects to use the general criteria contained in EC 9.8515
Subdivision. Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- General, where the applicant
proposes needed housing, as defined by the State statutes, the planning director
shall approve or approve with conditions a subdivision based on compliance with
the following criteria:
(3) The proposed subdivision complies with aU 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 Aeproved Subdivision Performance Aqreement. 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 devefopment 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 9f the need for public
ways and the manner in which to dispense with public ways. In addition, sections
9.8700 through 9.8725 ofthis 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 (001 08082) 1D.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 Requirements.
(1) Vacation of unimproved public easements shall be considered in accordance
with the Type I Application Procedures contained in EC 9.7000 through
9.7885 and the approval criteria contained in EC 9.8715. In the case of public
utility easements, statements of concurrence with the vacation from affected
utility providers must be submitted with the application.
(2) Vacation of improved public easements, unimproved public right-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) [Notv:ithstanding the provisions in subsections (1) and (2) above, v]Vacation
of any public way acquired with pUblic funds, vacation of improved public right-
of-way, and vacation of undeveloped subdivision and partition plats, or parts
thereof, including public right-of-way and improved pUblic easements located
therein, shall be considered and decided upon by the city council in
4.7 r1\d. accordance with the [Type IV Application P]procedures contained in EC
\!..9 [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 approved by the
city council]. The assessed value of special benefit shall include:
1. The value of the real property; and
2. The costs incurred by the city in the construction of public
improvements.
(b) Notice of the proposed assessment for benefits shall be given by mail to
the owners of the property to be assessed no less than 20 days prior to
the public hearing of the vacation application before the city council, or
~ in the case of Type II applications, 10 days prior to the issuance of
ca LJ the Planning Director's decision. [consistent \vtth the public he3ring
notice procedures prescribed in EC 9.7400 Generol Q'/erview of Tvpe IV
Application Procedures.
{G1} 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)10.DOC
/:,'"
(9Y
...........
Qj)
@
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 [aRd] the hour, date, and place of the public
hearing at which the city council will hear objections to the vacation or
assessment.
(Gc) At least 5 working days prior to the public hearing, or in the case of a
Type 1/ application, 5 working days prior to the decision, the land
owner shall deposit with the city the sum of money called for by this
subsection (45).
(ed) If the vacation application is approved [by the city council], the deposit
shall be retained by the city[as directed by the city aounGil]. If the
vacation application is denied [by tho city council], the deposit shall be
returned to the land owner.
(6) For vacations of improved or unimproved right-of-way, the application
must include the required consent from surrounding property owners as
set forth in ORS 271.080(2).
(57) For vacations of unimproved pUblic easements and improved public
easements, [under the Type I or Type" process,] the application must
include the signatures of all property owners [Gf.4Ael and owners of property
[subject to the easement and the owners of abutting properties] adjacent to
the easement being vacated.
Section 72. The lead paragraph of Section 9.8715 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is
amended to provide:
9.8715
Approval Criteria for the Vacation of an Unimproved Easement. The planning
director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the vacation application.
Approvalhl 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
~0
(~!/
APproval Criteria for Vacation of Improved Easements, Unimproved Public
Right..of-Wav. and Vacation and Rededication of Unimproved Public Right-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\Ternporary Internet FiIes\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor
Revisions (OO108082)1O.DOC
09/27/05
Section 74. The attached Figure 9.0500 Lot Lines, Lot Frontage, Lot Width, Lot Depth,
and Industrial Corridor Map 9.7805 are hereby adopted as amendments of, and replacements
for. the existing Figure 9.0500 and Map 9.7805.
Section 75. The legislative Findings attached as Exhibit A hereto are adopted in support
of this Ordinance.
Section 76. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the City
Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained herein, or in
other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971 to the provisions added, amended, or repealed
herein.
Section 77. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof.
Section 78. Sections 37 and 39 of the Eugene Charter of 2002 require that procedures
for vacating a public improvement be regulated by general ordinance, that any ordinance
amending those procedures not take effect for a period of six months after the date of adoption,
and then only if the ordinance is approved by an affirmative vote of six councilors. Pursuant to
those Charter provisions, the amendments to Sections 9.7055, 9.7405, 9.8700, 9.8710. 9.8715,
and 9.8720 of the Eugene Code, 1971 as set forth herein shall become effective six months
after the date this Ordinance is adopted, and then only if this Ordinance is approved by an
affirmative vote of six councilors.
Section 79. Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in the Eugene
Charter of 2002, this Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of its passage by
the City Council and approval by the Mayor, or upon the date of its acknowledgment as
provided by ORS 197.625, whichever date is later. If that date is less than six months from the
date this Ordinance is adopted. those Sections referenced in Section 78 above shall not
Ordinance - 42
C:\Documents and Settings\ceplsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 ell 9 Misc. Minor
Revisions (00108082) 1 O.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
t 2005
_ day of
,2005
City Recorder
Mayor
Ordinance - 43
C:\Documents and Settings\c~plsan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4F\05 Ch 9 Misc. Minor
Revisions (OO108082)lO.DOC
Figure
9.0500
Curved Lot
/
I Change in bearing
greater than 100
/
-- --- ---
--....--------.......
f -................
I ....
I
Red uced Lot
/ Frontage (35' ~)
--I /'
: /'
/'
Street Centerline -.J
I
I
I
~:
I R "" less than 300' :
I
I
l_________
t
I
\ t
\ I
I
\ I
\ I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
..,
I
I
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
(Jl
0
\ -A.
CJt
Lot Width I
\ I
O'l
q -A.
CJt
\ .
I
40'
Figure
9.0500
Lot Lines, Lot Frontage,
Lot Width, Lot Depth
- - - - Front Lot line
Required FrontYard
Setback According to Zone
- - - - - - Interior lot Line
.. .. lot Width
Required Interior Yard
Setback According to Zone
~ ~ Lot Depth
G ~ ~ - - -0 Lot Frontage
Figure
9.2171(5)
Maximum Front Yard Setbacks,
Buildin Orientation, and Entrances
15' maximum front~
yard setback for
(-1, (-2 andC-3.
Building Portion wi!hin Setbacks:
In (-1, at least 80% of all street
facing building facades must be
. ) within !he specified maximum
setback. Building Portion within Setbacks: In (-2 or
(-3, at least 25% of all street facing
building facades must be wi!hin the
specified maximum setback (O to 15 feet).
t
I
...,--.
See Figure 9.2173(3) for
buildings over 25,000
square feet floor area.
Landscape:
The s pace between !he building
and street complying with the
maximum setback above must be
landscaped or an enhanced
pedestrian space in accordance
with E( 9.6210(1) Basic
Landscape Standard or Figure
9.2171 (SHe).
Paving and Pedestrian Amenities:
The maximum front yard setback may
be exceeded if the area between the
building and the street 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. 5 ee
Figure 9.2171(5)(e) and Figure
9.4530(8).
*::::: Main Entrance
Map 9.7805
Industrial Corridor
.\ \ ~~RREY 1 N
\1 J : I
~ '\ ~f- -- ~ .\ If
~ '-- - IF
- -=
~-
t::::::- ......
~ r---, _
'-r.-
~ ~ ~c- ~i
'\\ ~/
j ~ L J 1 ~ ~~ I I ~\\l
...., a:JI1]
"'~ I I I _ \
Jt;:
..., --
'l ~ ~ f >~~, IIr ~ J
~\ I '\~
I~\~\.
~~i~ \
~, \'
~\ '\ \ \\-
- '- -" , \\. \\ I\"\.~ '
g \:'" \ \1.
~ \ \\ '.,:":J
~\ \ \
II
,
'---J
)
a::
w
!"l
1l
IT
r/
) un
.J
I
-
u...
f
j v
- Industrial Corridor
Boundary
N
t\ ~
1IV3/05
::?{ l."
~
ILl Y
Exhibit A
FINDINGS
The following criteria from Be 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 infomlation, the process followed is consistent with Goal 1.
Goal] - Land Use Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policyframework as a
basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual 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 ofthese 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 Goa12.
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, Goa14 does not apply.
GoalS - Open Spaces. Scenic and Historic Areas. and Natural Resources. To conserve open space
and pretect natural and scenic resources.
These amendments do not create or amend the city's list of GoalS resources, do not amend a code
provision adopted in order to protect a significant GoalS 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 ef 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 previde adequate opportunities throughout the state fer a
variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon ~ citizens.
The amendments do not impact the supply of industrial or commercial lands. Therefore, the
amendments are consistent with Goal 9.
Goal 10 - Housing. To provide fer 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,
Goal 11 does not apply.
Goal 12 - Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation
system.
[Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) contains the following requirement:
(1) Amendments to functionalplans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use regulations
which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are
consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of
service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility....
(2) A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it:
(a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility;
(b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system;
(c) Allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access
which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility;
or
(d) Would reduce the performance standards of the facility below the minimum
acceptable level identified in the TSP}
Due to the minor nature of these amendments, the proposed amendments do not affect the
provision of safe, convenient and economic transportation systems and do not significantly affect
any transportation facilities.
Goal 13 ~ Energy Conservation. To conserve energy.
The amendments do not impact energy conservation. Therefore, Goal 13 does not apply.
Goal 14 - Urbanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban
land use.
The amendments do not affect the City's provisions regarding the transition ofland from rural to
urban uses. Therefore, Goal 14 does not apply.
Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway. To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural,
scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the
WUlamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.
The amendments to not contain any changes that affect the regulation of areas within the
Willamette River Greenway. Therefore, Goal 15 does not apply.
Goals 16 -19. Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocaen
resources.
These Statewide Planning Goals do not apply to the actions taken.
(2) The amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and
applicable adopted refmement 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, 110
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 anlendments do not establish a special area zone. Therefore, this criterion does not
apply to these amendments.
Proposed Minor Code fixes
(As recommended by the Planning Commission)
9.0500
;; . . " .~.' ~;~:..;:ijti~~~~~~~~~!~~~~t~~~~~[~tili~~~~~~~r~~ft~~1~~1~~J~I mlt.tilt~~~~~1i1~~~IDJ~tl~lW~1
CD
9.0500
(j)
9.0500
~
9.0500
(f)
9.0500
@
9.0500
@
DefInition of ''canopy tree"
does not allow any coniferous
trees
DefInition of curved lot
Deflnition of "Development
site "
Duplex definition: Attachment
requirements
"Legal1ot" 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 (BC 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. Staff has
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.
ATTACHMENTC
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 defmition to be based
on 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 teet
The purpose oflot width
standards is to ensure an
adequate buildable area as well
corresponding separation
between buildings. The revised
definition ",rill provide a
midpoint measurement which
more accurately reflects actual
lot width, while accounting for
non-rectan lar lots.
9.0500
fj)
9.2160
@
9.2161(1)
(j)
Table 9.2170
9.2171(5)(c)
@
9.2171(5)
@
9.2171(11,d)
9.8030
@
9.2171(15)(e)
@
9.2173(1 O)(c)
(@
"'Vision clearance area"
definition regarding dimensions
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
required for R V sales in C.2
zone
C-1 limitation of 5,000 square
feet of floor area per tenant as it
relates to existing buildings
Percent of building fa~ade
required within 15' maximum
setback for General Office
(GO) zone
Buildings in C-2 & C-3 are
required to be within 15' of a
street Of "Internal private way"
Outdoor Display within
required setback
Reference to stacking lane
requirements
Large commercial building
standards -loading docks.
Standard requires ground floor
windows on aU sides of a large
commercial building, including.
loading docks.
The definition explains how to
determine the vision clearance
triangle but doem't denote that
the triangle legs are 35' long.
CUP requirement excessive
compared to other similar uses
which are permitted outright
(i.e. auto and motorcycle sales,
auto repair, service stations).
R V issues addressed through
commercial design standards.
CUP process in these cases
doesn't add value.
Code is unclear if 5,000 sq. ft.
limitation applies to new
tenants in existing buildings
which already exceed 5,000 sq
ft.
GO zone does not specify the
minimum percentage of
building facade that is required
within the 15' maximum
setback. C-2/C-3 zones require
25% of the building to be
within the setback; C-1 requIres
80%.
"Internal private way" is not
defined. Term is intended to
account for internal streets
within a commercial center,
which are distinguished from
drive aisles, by providing curb
and raised sidewalk designs.
Only plant and garden supply
displays are allowed within 7'
of front property line within C-
2 & 0.4. Does not allow other
potentially acceptable forms of
outdoor display (e.g. antiques,
art)
Code incorrectly references the
parking lot standards rather
than drive-through standards.
Since loading docks typically
don't face public view,
windows would pose little
benefit and pose potential
conflicts with design of the
loading dock.
Include the dimension of35
feet in the defmition to coincide
with the figure.
Allow R V sales in C.2 zone as
a permitted use consistent with
auto-related uses.
Clarify that the limitation only
applies to new buildings in C-l,
so as to enable tenant reuse of
existing building.
Clarify the minimum percent of
building frontage that must be
located within the maximum
setback. GO zone is typically
considered to be less intense
than C-2/C-3 and more intense
than C-1. Therefore, a
requirement of 60% was
determined appropriate.
The code already contains
definitions \vithin the "Large
Commercial Facilities"
development standards which
address the same issue.
Amendment would reference
these defmitions.
Establish an adjustment review
option for outdoor displays
consistent with purpose of
commercial design standards.
Replace current reference with
correct reference to drive-
through standards.
Exempt the window
requirement along walls
containing loading docks.
9.2180,9.2470,
9.2686, 9.3220,
9.3822
ci3J
9.2450(table)
@
9.2450(tahle)
@
9.2683(2)
(jj)
9.2685(1)
(fj)
9.2741
@
9.2760 (table)
9.2761(6)
@>
"Average Lot Width"
requirement for Commercial,
Industrial, Public Land,
Downtown Westside & Royal
Node S ecial Area zones
Land Use Table for Industrial
Zones related to
Telecommunication towers and
facilities
Trucking Terminals allowed in
1-2 and 1.3 zones
PL zone requires a Site Review
for many uses and a CUP for
more significant uses within
300' of residential property
Height of buildings within 50'
of a residential zone restricted
to height limit of adjacent
residential zone
Land Use Table for Residential
Zones, related to rowhouses
Creation of duplex, triplex &
fourplex lots in new
subdivisions: Allows limited
number of multi-family lots in
R-l subdivisions
The tenn "Average lot width" is
mistakenly referenced. Lot
width is not measured by an
averaging approach (see 9.0500
for definition oflot width).
Section 9.5750 specifically
allows telecommunication
towers in 1.1, but this is not
reflected on the Use Table (EC
9.2450 .
Since 1968 this use has been
permitted outright in these two
zones, however it is not
specifically listed in the 1-2 and
1.3 use tables.
Language is unclear. Could be
read to require a Site Review in
addition to a CUP. The intent
was to elevate more intense
uses to a more intense public
hearin rocess (i.e. Cup).
Language is not clear that the
special height restriction is
limited to that portion of a
building within the 50' huffer.
Does not account for buildings
with va in hei hts.
Rowhouses are allowed in
residential zones, subject to
specific limitations in some
zones. Table does not reference
the special limitations listed in
EC 9.735 Siting Re uirements
Code not clear this is limited to
subdivision plats, not partitions.
Also implies that a request to
utilize the allowance for a
duplex, triplex or fourplex in an
R-l subdivision is binding.,
rather than an option, thereby
precluding future options to
simply build a single family
residence instead.
Eliminate the word "average"
from each code section.
Add the "S" symbol to the Land
Use Table enabling
telecommunication towers in
the I-I zone, subject to special
standards.
Clarify that trucking terminals
are permitted outright in the 1.2
and 1-3 zones by listing in the
industrial use matrix.
Clarify language such that the
projects requiring a CUP are
not also subject to Site Review.
Clarify that the special height
restriction applies only for that
portion of a building within 50'
of a residential zone.
Include reference in the Land
Use Table regarding special
limitations listed in EC 9.735.
Modify language consistent
with duplex provisions in
9.2741(4,5,6). Also, clarify that
duplex, triplex, fourplex
designation entitles (rather than
mandates) owner to develop lot
with extra unit(s)
9.2760
@
9.27~.
lCitJ
9.2761(6)
@
9.2775(1)
@
9.2795(3)(a)
@
Table
9.3910
@
9.4730(3);
9.4830(2,b)
@
13,500 sq. ft. tnaximum lot size
requirement for R -1 lots
Exceptions to maximum lot size
Special standards for
establishing duplex, triplex and
fourplex lots in subdivisions
Purpose statement regarding
flag lots
Exemption from Solar Setback
requirement: Lots having 20%
slope and generally north facing
Residential Day Care, 3-12
persons served in Whiteaker
Special Area Zone
Site review required for
wetland restoration projects
approved by West Eugene
Wetland Mitigation Bank team
Standard intended to encourage
infiU in R-l by limiting new
parcels to 13,500 sq. ft.
Currently applies to existing
parcels as well. Could prohibit
2 existing lots over 13,500 sq.
ft. from adjusting a common
property line.
Current exceptions do not
clearly allow waiver of the
maximum lot size based on
natural resource protection.
Provision is intended as an
exception for R-110ts only, but
the code implies it affects
multi-family zones too. Multi-
family zones already allow
duplex, triplex and fourplex
units.
Purpose statement references
old code provision regarding
screening along flag lot
driveway, however the
requirement for screening was
eliminated in LUCU update.
Intended to exempt parcels on
steep slopes (>20%) which
won't cast significant shadows
on adjoining lots. Code
incorrectly references south
facing lots.
Table lists day care for 3-12
persons, but does not specify if
use is allowed. Table does list
day care for over 12 persons as
permitted, thereby supporting
the intent that less than 12
persons should also be allowed.
Site Review process provides
no additional benefit as wetland
restoration projects are subject
to extensive review and
requirements at State and
Federal level far exceed local
site review provisions. Projects
have been limited to city
restoration projects.
Revise language such that the
R-1 maximum lot standard
applies to land divisions only
(subdivisions, partitions).
Clarify that an exception to
maximum lot size can be
granted in order to protect
natural resources.
Specify that this code section
only applies to subdivisions in
R-l zones.
Eliminate screening language
consistent with current flag lot
proVlslOns.
Correct the compass reference
error by referring to north
facing lots regarding
exemption.
Add an "8" in the permitted
column to clarify that this use is
allowed if specific standards are
met.
Eliminate requirement for site
review for wetland restoration
projects approved hy the
Mitigation Bank team within
the IWB and IWP overlay
zones. Would affect future city
restoration projects.
9.5250{ 1 )(b) Faml 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.
9.5 350 Home Occupation requirements Code restricts flag lots from Add provision in Horne
@ 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 an consistent with open space
area outside of maximum prOVISIons.
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
9.5 750(6,a, 10); Requirements for Code requires review by Replace old name with current
9.5750(6,b,1l) 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/vr.),
9.6105(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 oflong and short similar uses.
term bike parkinS! spaces.
9.6105(4)table Bike parking for "Office Use is specifically identified in Include Office Equipment and
@) Equipment and Supplies" use vehicle parking tablel but was Supplies category with bike
inadvertently left off the bike parking standards consistent
parking table. with similar uses (1 space/3,OOO
sq. ft.).
9.6105(4)table;
9.641O(table)
@
9.6410(3)
@J
Bike and Vehide parking
requirements for "Martial Arts"
uses
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 requirements for
outdoor restaurant seating
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 ua e is silent.
ClarifY that parking islands
need to meet 7()1'11o 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"
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.
Time Period for Election Sign
Exemption
Downtown Activity Zone Sign
Exemption
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 eJection 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 )
@
9.6640(4)(d)
@
9.6650(3)(c)
@
9.6670(6)(b)
@
9.670~
9.6730
9.8030
@
9.6745 (3)(b)
@
9.6745(3)(c)
@
9.6805; 9.6870
(mN(@)
Installation of Signs prior to
Permit Issuance
Vision Clearance Area for
Signs:
Signs for Manufactured Home
Park
Reference to Revocable Pertuit
Requirements for Signs in
ROW
Flood Plain Standards
On-site Pedestrian Circulation
Projecting Architectural
Features for Multiple Story
Buildings
Allowance for signs in required
front yard setbacks
Dedication of Public Ways
Language in code is not clear as
to when signs may be installed.
Some applicants have installed
signs before paying for their
oormit.
Reference to Vision Clearance
standards was not modified in
LUCU to match revised
language describing when
standards apply.
Code allows identity sign (e.g.
project name) for a subdivision
or Planned Unit Development
but not a manufactured home
park
Current code requires revocable
permit for all forms of signs in
the public right..of-way. Some
signs, such as plaques, or other
minor signs don't warrant
permit requirements
Current standards do not match
new federally mandated
language.
Code does not allow applicants
to request alternative
approaches to the requirements
regarding pedestrian
circulation.
Previous language was
inadvertently omitted which
allowed eaves, chimneys and
similar architectural features
above one story to project into
side yards (as is allowed for the
first story). Would allow a
chimney to encroach on first
floor but not the second floor.
Code section describing
allowed intrusions of signs into
setbacks does not match
allowance cited in residential
zones & sign standards.
References to public way
design standards do not ensure
consistency with public
improvement standards and
Arterial Collector Street Plan.
Clarify code to match current
policy that permit issuance, not
permit approval, must occur
before installing sign.
Clarify this reference by using
same applicability provisions as
main Vision Clearance Area
section (EC 9.6780).
Allow identity sign tor a
manufactured home park
consistent with other residential
developments.
Revise code to allow Public
Works staff the ability to waive
revocable permit process for
minor signs
Revisecocle to meet federal
standards.
Create an adjustment review
provision allowing
consideration of alternatives to
the current standards, provided
the alternative meets or exceeds
the same objectives as the
standards.
Modify language to clarify that
these architectural features are
allowed to project as per current
policy> which includes the
second story.
Revise code to be consistent in
all three locations which
currently allows signs to extend
up to 5' into 10' front yard
setback.
Provide necessary references in
Chapter 9 to ensure other
adopted design standards and
policies are applied.
9.6810
@J
9.6815(2)
@
9.6820;
9.80~)(b)
9.6870 (table)
@
9.6885(2)
@
9.7015
(i)
9.7020
@
Requires new local streets to
intersect with other streets at
intervals of 600' or less
Adjustment Review regarding
street connectivity
Cul-de-sac requirements
Cul-de-sac design standards
Tree preservation plans requires
report from certified arborist
Completeness Review:
Timeline for response to
incomplete applications
Waiver oftimelines
Code does not allow flexibility
from the 600' standard except
for physical constraints. Some
larger subdivisions may provide
a thorough network of streets,
but have an intersection slightly
> 600', requiring another
unnecessary street.
Adjustment review process is
redundant. Street connectivity
is already evaluated as part of
land use application
(subdivision, partition, POO,
etc). Any requests for
exceptions can be handled
through the main application.
Language describing when a
cul-de-sac vs. alternative
designs (i.e. hammerheads) can
be used is confusin!!.
Right-of-way (ROW) and
paving width requirements are
not consistent with other
adopted public works standards
Requirement is limited to
certified arborists. In some
cases, landscape architects are
better equipped to look at
broader site design options to
improve tree preservation.
Especially relevant when tree
health/vitality are not key
factors.
Language is not consistent with
more recently adopted State
Statutes which puts burden on
the applicant to infoM city of
their intention to provide
missing information,
Current language implies any
timeline can be waived,
however a recently adopted
state statute limits time waivers
for land use applications.
Create an exception provision
allowing requests for
exceptions to the 600' standard
while maintaining street
connectivity and emergency
access objectives.
Eliminate requirement for
separate adjustment review and
instead, fold in same
requirements into an exception
process as part of the primary
land use application review.
This will consolidate aU street
connectivity discussion without
changing any actual
requirements.
Clarify circumstances in which
exceptions to cul-de-sac design
can be requested and granted.
Revise the table to specify
consistent right-of-way
standards for cul-de-sacs
Revise standard to allow
landscape architects as well as
certified arborists to provide the
required report.
Revise language to ensure
consistency with State Law.
Clarify limitation on timeline
waivers consistent 'with state
statutes (maximum of 245
days).
9.7110
@
9.7605,9.7655
@
9.7805(map),
9.78~.
~
9.8010 (table)
@
9.8030(10)
@)
9.8030(10)
@
9.8055(1)
~
9.8055(1)
@
Type I decisions: Limits
decisions to approval or denials
Filing deadlines for appeals
Industrial Corridor Map
Reference to adopted plans
includes specific dates for each
plan.
Traffic Demand Management
(TDM) Plans: Adjustments to
parking standards
Adjustment to parking
standards: Timing and
requirement for TDM plans
Cluster Subdivision Criteria
Ouster Subdivisions:
Relaxation of lot and
development standards
EC 9.8415 and 9.8715 allow
conditional approval of
property line adjustments and
unimproved easement
vacations. This conflicts with
language under Type I process,
which implies projects can only
be approved or denied as is.
Code requires filing of appeals
within 12 days of notice of
decision but does not specify
the time of day for this deadline
(e.g. could allow after hours
submittals).
ICCO map doesn't precisely
match the boundaries in the
1991 Industrial Corridor
Agreement.
Many dates listed in table are
not reflected on adopted plan or
do not correspond to date of
adoption. If plans are amended,
it would require a code
amendment simply to reflect
new date.
Code allows the city to require
an annual report for TDM's
involving a reduction in
minimum parking, but not for
TDM's involving excess
parkin}:!.
Requires TDM approval before,
rather than a part of adjustment
review. Requires formal TDM
for all requests. Some
adjustment reviews can be
adequately addressed without a
formal TDM.
Criteria reference redundant.
Lot dimensions, street and
public improvement standards
already addressed within
standard subdivision criteria.
Doesn't include intended range
of standards which can be
relaxed (i.e. Setbacks, lot
coverage etc). Also requires
separate adjustment review
process instead of integrating
within the subdivision nrocess.
Correct conflicting language by
amending Be 9.7110 to allow
for conditional approvals.
Specify that the deadline
expires at 5pm or the close of
the regular business day.
Revise geographic description
in 9.7885 and map to match
agreement.
Eliminate dates from the table
of applicable plans.
Establish ability to require
annual reports for TDM plans
requesting adjustments to
maximum parking
requirements.
Revise language so that a TDM
plan is reviewed as part of
adjustment review. Allow
ability to waive formal TDM
plan if required adjustment
review criteria are otherwise
met.
Strike EC 9.8055(1)(c), (d) and
(e).
Revise language and review
process to provide intended
range of standards available for
relaxation while integrating an
exceptions process (same
requirements) into subdivision
process.
9.8090(8)(c)
9.8215(1)(b)
9. 8220(2){b)
9.8320(5)(a) 'i?
9.8325(6)(a) \!$
9. 8440(3)(a)
9.8515(1)(b)
9. 8520(3)(b)
9.8130(2)
@
9.8335
@
9.8410(1)
(ij)
9.8410(2)
@
9.8580
@)
9.8710
@
Approval criteria for various
land UBe applications regarding
street connectivity standards
PUD Design Team must
include a member of the
American Institute of Certified
Planners (Alep), unless waived
by Planning Director
Modification to Approved
Tentative POO's
Property Line Adjustment:
Surveyor Stamp required
Property Line Adjustments:
Title report required
Final Subdivision requirements
Vacations of improved right-of-
way (ROW)
Approval criteria require
compliance with street
connectivity standards (BC
9.6800-9.6870), but
inadvertently excluded
reference to private street
design standards (BC 9.6875).
Requirement for AICP planner
does not necessarily correlate to
better prepared projects. AICP
is a voluntary certification~ and
does not serve an accurate
measure of effectiveness.
PUD's have 2 approval steps.
Code does not allow requests
for minor modifications to the
first step (Tentative PUD's), but
does for the second step (Final
PUD). Applicants are either
required to start the process
over, or process the final POO
for a project they have no desire
to build, simply to avail
themselves of the modification
process.
Code does not reflect ORS
requirement for surveyor stamp
on parallel adjustments for
unplatted lots (lots not created
through a land division).
Staff have, at times, had
difficulty obtaining title reports
from applicants that are current,
given lack of clarity in the code.
EC 9.7025 requires
performance agreements related
to subdivisions. No means
available to consider
modifications to agreements as
is allowed for many other
similar applications.
State law only requires Council
approval of ROW vacations,
which until LUCU, is how such
requests were handled. LUCU
standardized all application
procedures (Type I through V),
which did not account for this
unique vacation process.
Amend various code references
to ensure approval criteria
require compliance with private
street standards (Ee 9.6875).
Eliminate the AICP
requirement.
Establish a provision to allow
requests for modifications to
tentative POO's similar to Final
POO process (Type II review).
This will enable public notice
as is required tor all other
modifications requests.
Add language consistent with
ORS requirement to require
surveyor stamp in these
situations.
Add language to require a
current preliminary title report
(within one year).
Establish Type II modification
process similar to other
performance agreements (i.e.
Site Reviews, CUP's, PUD's)
Clarify that vacations of
improved right-of-way go
directly to City Council
(including public hearing).
9.8710(6)
@
9.8710(7)
@)
9.8720
@>
Last revised 10/17/05
ROW vacation: Consent
requirements
Required consent for public
utility easement vacations
Unimproved ROW vacation:
Payment of assessed value
Code only references a portion
of ORS requirements which
apply to vacations of ROW.
Does not include requirements
pertaining to consent of
adjoining and surrounding
property owners.
Language conflicts with intent
to require consent from any
owners adjacent to the portion
of easement to be vacated.
Implies consent also required
from unaffected neighbors.
Code does not specify how and
when applicant shall pay for
vacated unim:proved ROW
(Type II process). However,
code does. specify provisions
for vacations of improved
ROW.
Include reference to applicable
ORS requirements.
Revise language to clarify
consent is only required of
owners of property adjacent to
the easement in question.
Provide language similar to
Type IV ROW vacations.
Amendments identified for possible elimination due to potential increase in property value
NYSTROM Steven A
ATIACHMENTD
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
NYSTROM Steven A
Friday, October 28,20054:14 PM
*Eugene Mayor and City Council
TAYLOR Dennis M; MUIR Susan L; MILLER Dawna A; KLEIN Glenn; JEROME Emily N:
MCKERROW Mike J
Response to Minor Code Amendment questions
As noted at the public hearing Monday, October 24, staff has prepared a written response to the following questions raised
in Councilor Bettman's e-mail regarding the Minor Land Use Code Amendments. Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: BETTMAN Bonny S
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 9:36 AM
To: MUIR Susan L; TAYLOR Dennis M
Cc: *Eugene Mayor and City Council
Subject: Question for tonight's PH on Land Use Code Amendments.
Importance: High
5) 9.0500
How will changing to IAlegal Lot" from IALot of Record" affect M37 claims? There
was a case in front of the BCC with this issue as the pivotal determining factor. This
means that the lot is legal if the deed was signed but not recorded, as opposed to the
current requirement that it be recorded?
Response: The City Attorney is evaluating the background on this issue with Lane County. If the City Attorney
determines that this issue could in any way potentially affect M37 claims, staffrecommends removal of this
amendment.
8) 9.2160
Wouldn't this allow RV sales downtown, and many other inappropriate places due
to the ubiquitous prevalence of C..2 zoning? This seems like an intensity of use
more appropriate for I 1 or I 2 zones.
Response: Downtown is primarily zoned C-3 which does not allow RV sales. However, there are some portions
of downtown zoned C-2. The C-2 zone currently allows for R V sales, subject to a CUP. The code amendment
would change RV sales from a conditional~y permitted use to a pennitted use in C-2. RV sales could not he
considered in the Industrial zones as retail sales as a primary use is not permitted.
18) 9.2683 (2)
Does this allow trucking terminals in the Railroad yards that are adjacent to RRSC
and Trainsong Neighborhoods?
Where specifically is this likely to apply?
Response: This question actually refers to question tl17) 9.2450 (table) fl. The land use code prior to the 2001
update listed "Transportation and freight yards and tenninals II as a permitted outright use in the 1-2 and 1-3
zones. In order to simplify the code, staff eliminated some specific uses if another use tvith the same operational
1
characteristics remained. "Contractor storage yard" is the similar use in this case and is a permitted outright
use in the 1-2 and 1-3 zones. Therefore, trucking terminals are currently allowed under this category. Adding the
term "trucking terminat' back to the use table does not allow any new development options. However, it
clarifies the code for the user since the current table is not intuitive for this use.
The rai(vard site adjacent to the Trainsong neighborhood is currently unzoned. Therefore, the 1-2 and 1-3
provisions do not apply. The railyard is limited to rail related services. There are sites a({jacent to the rai~yard
that are zoned 1-2 and 1-3 which currently allow trucking terminals.
21)25) 9.2760,9.2761 (6)
Does this provision, which I think applies only to new development, essentially
decrease density? The text on page
368 makes the percentages of higher density IIpermitted" which seems to change it
from a requirement to an option.
Is that correct?
Will a fourplex lot in r..l that is 16,000 sq ft, that "may" developed as a single family
home functionally circumvents the 13, 5000 max lot size?
Response: The code provisions related to duplex, triplex andfourplex units in R-1 are specifically limited to
subdivision applications. This provision is optional, but if the applicant avails themselves of it, the subdivision
plat shall indicate which lots are designated for duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. The question in the
proposed amendment is whether a future builder must be held to the original request. The amendment would
allow an applicant to build a single-family residence instead of the previous requested multi-famiZv units.
However, there is no minimum density requirement in R-I, so such a request would not affect any required
density provisions.
With regard to the 13,500 sq. ft. lot size requirement, it is possible that a fourplex lot of 16,000 sq. ft. could be
created and later developed with a single-family residence. To address this issue, staff will propose that a
statement be added requiring the applicant to demonstrate that all other requirements of the land use code are
satisfied in order to build a single-family residence.
22) 9.2760
Regarding the possibility that this will increase property values, was the 50' lot
width a mistake when lucu was updated? Flat out mistakes that preclude the
II desired" objectives should be corrected.
Response: The Council specifically added rowhouses as a permitted housing type l-vithin the R-l zone during
L UCU However, it appears that a corresponding reduced lot width should have been included to account for
the unique (narrow) design of row houses. The amendment would provide this necessary reduced lot width
provision.
24) 9.2761
Does this create the ability for staff to use their discretion to waive the maximum lot
size? How can staff establish that the "protection" is in perpetuity and not just long
enough to obtain the waiver? Won't this also reduce density?
2
Response: The code currently allows requests for adjustment review regarding maximum lot size however, these
requests do not include natural resource protection as a reason for considering such requests. Depending on
the application type, either the Planning Director or Hearings Official is the decision maker. Typical~v, these
issues would arise during a partition, subdivision or PUD. These applications already have the ability to
establish conditions which ensure the long-term protection of natural resources and would be applied when
requests for maximum lot size a<!justment arejustifled.
33) 34) (.5500 (8) (a) Page 374, Does this make the area of landscaping equal to that of
Ii open space"? Isn't II open space" permitted to be paved? If that is the case could this
result in NO landscaping?
Response: This amendment is limited to the R-2 zone. In R-2, the code currentZv requires 20% of the site to be
devoted to common open space. The code amendment 'would require an equivalent amount of landscaping,
which tvould require at least 20% of the site to contain landscaping. Since the definition of open space includes
features such as courtyards and pedestrian paths as well as some landscaping, features such as lawns could
count toward the 20% open space requirement. However, landscaping is more narrowly defined as living plant
material. Therefore, no portion of any hardscape material could count t01-vard the 20% landscaping
requirement. This will ensure that at least 20% of the site is landscaped, regardless of what additional form of
open space is provided.
The current code language essential~y prohibits anv hardscape (including driveways, patios and pedestrian
paths) outside the maximum allowed buildingfootprintfor R-2 property, which is inconsistent with all other
zones.
42)9.6400 again, was this just a mistake in the lucu? How do you determine it is a
mistake, or lJinadvertent?"
It shouldn't be considered an up zone if it fixes a mistake.
Response: This issue specifically relates to 9.64 J 0 (table). Following adoption of LUCU it came to staffs
attention that the parking requirement for wholesale trade changed. In the preparation of the new parking table
during the L ueu process, it appears the ratio corresponding to "manufacturing" was used for "wholesale
trade" rather than the more accurate ratio for "storage. " If a wholesale trade use has a manufacturing
component to the business, that higher ratio is applied to that portion of the site.
44) 9.6420 (f)
Isn't this provision meant to #buffer" non-commercial uses from parking? Would it
be just as effective if it articulated that instead of eliminating it altogether? If the
# existing" structure is another commercial use, it makes sense to waive the
provision.
Response: This standard is primarily intended to create a landscape strip between the parking structure and the
street to provide a softer edge for adjacent to sidewalks and streetscapes. The existing code language does not
appear to address buffering of adjacent properties. Parking structures typical~v contain commercial uses 011 a
portion of the ground floor. The code essentially requires that where the ground floor commercial ends
(exposing the parking structure), there shall be a 5' strip between the parking structure (e.g. "non-commercial
portion of the parking structure") and the propel1y line. This works well along the street frontages, but not
along an interior property line (ac[jacent to another building). The current language requires this landscaping
even if the 5' landscape strip is the only separation between the parking structure and adjacent building. Such
conditions are not conducive to landscape survival. The proposed language not only maintains the buffering
3
along street frontages, it also maintains a requirement for buffering along interior property lines (even though
its unclear if this was intended). However, it does resolve the "canyon effect" potential by requiring at least 15'
of separation betlveen buildings.
57)9.6810
This loosens the criteria for which the exception shall be granted based on lInot
creating excessive travel lengths. 11
The provision was established according to standards for creating Pedestrian
friendly and walkable developments.
But your criteria do not differentiate between travel lengths for autos or for humans
on foot. Doesn't it need to specifically address pedestrian travel lengths and define
what is excessive?
Response: One of the approval criteria for most land use applications is that the project develop a street system
with block lengths of 600' or less. In addition to that criterion, the code also requires several others components
related to streets, transit, pedestrian and bicycle access. This proposed amendment would be limited to the 600'
standard. All other provisions addressing circulation and access for all modes 'would remain in effect. [n other
words, all other criterion would need to be met in order to consider block lengths longer than 600'.
58) This adds to the trend of removing objective and clear code standards and
vesting all discretion for waiving provisions with staff.
Response: The code currently contains an adjustment review process related to street connectivity. Since street
connectivity is always considered as part of a land use application, the current code requires 2 separate
requests for the same project. This amendment essential~y consolidates these provisions by moving the
m{justment review process under the main land use application. For example, a subdivision application would
contain the street connectivity alijustment process rather than processing the same provisions in a separate
parallel request. This amendment will not change any of the criteria for adjustment, the public
notice/involvement process, or the decision making authority.
66) 9.7805, 9.7885
Who is the decision making authority for the Industrial Corridor Agreement and
what will be the process to change the boundaries if this code revision is adopted?
What specific properties are affected by this change?
Response: The Council originally authorized the creation of the Industrial Corridor Agreement. That agreement
specified which parcels were included within the boundaries. The proposed amendment is limited to correcting
the figure included in Chapter 9. so that it accurately represents those parcels referenced in the approved
agreement. The figure currently shol-1.-'S some parcels in the Airport Road area li/hich should not be included
within the boundaries. No change to the agreement or the process to amend this agreement are proposed.
71) 9.8055 (1)
Does this create an automatic waiver authority for staff? Would it apply to potential
M37 claims?
Response: The code currently allows for flexibility in the design of cluster subdivisions. The proposed
4
amendment would not create any new waivers. It would eliminate reference to specific criteria that are already
covered in another section. EC 9.8055(1)(a and b) contain the same code sections which are cited below in
subsections (c, d and e).
Thank you for your attention to these questions. Bonny Bettman
5
.
A'ITACliMENT E
Planning & Development
Planning
MEMORANDUM
City of Eugene
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541} 682-5377
(541) 682-5572 FAX
www.eugene-or.Us
Date: November 21, 2005
To: Mayor Piercy and City Council
From: Steve Nystrom, Planning Division
Subject: CA 04-4: Response to Council questions and public testimony regarding the minor land use
code amendments
The purpose of this memo is to respond to questions raised by the City Council at the October 24,2005
public hearing. In addition, staff has provided a response to testimony received following the public
hearing, but before the close of the record on October 31, 2005.
Citv Council Ouestions
At the October 24, 2005 public hearing, the Council identified several proposed code amendments which
warranted further discussion or response from staff. Although many of these items have been addressed
in the e-mail response to Councilor's Rettman's questions (also attached), this memo provides responses
to additional items raised at the hearing. These items are listed below with their respective reference
number and code section citation. For those code sections proposed for revision (shO\vn below), the
recommended edits are shO"wn as follows:
. Deletions from 9/27/05 draft shown in held itRJic underline
. Additions to 9/27/05 draft shown in Qf)(d italic double underline
#5; EC9.0500: Legal lot defmition. The proposed change would base legal lot status on the date a deed
was signed, rather than the date it was recorded. Concern was raised that this proposed change could
affect future M37 claims, based on a recent claim filed with Lane County.
Response: The City Attorney's office has evaluated the Lane County measure 37 claim that stl~ff believes
the Council is rt;ferencing. The Board chose to con.<;ider, as evidence of the date of the claimant's
ownership, an unrecorded land sale contract betweenfamily members. A deedfor the sale was recorded
at a later date. Regardless of how EC Chapter 9 defines "legal lot, " the City At/Onley does not believe
that the d4inition would have any conclusive effect on the Council's consideration of such a measure 37
claim since ownership is not dependent upon a recorde.d deed or the e:'!;istence of a legal lot. With respect
to the concern that the revision could result in an increase in value, in the vast m({jority of cases. staff
believes that it would provide some additionalflexibility but l-vould not increase the value of a lot.
However, the change could arguably increase the value of a property for which no deed can be recorded.
For that reason, council may wish to consider elimination of this amendment.
#14; EC 9.2173(lO)(c): Exempt ground floor window requirement adjacent to loading docks.
Concern was expressed that this exemption may be too broad for larger buildings, where the loading dock
may occupy a limited portion of the wall in question. It was suggested that some limitation be
considered.
Page 1 of7
Response: Staff would suggest a revision to the code language as foll(Jws:
9.2173
Commercial Zone Development Standards ~ Lan:te Commercial
FacUities.
(10) Exterior Wall Articulation, Facades, and Ground Floor Windows.
(c) Except for building walls [with loadinQ docks or1 facing 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 shalt be treated by measuring through such areas as though
along the flat wall of a building. (See Figure 9.2173(10)(c)
Large Commercial FacUities-Ground Floor Window
Calculation.) Solid walts are prOhibited along street frontages.
This standard does not apply to parking structures. ErJra wall
with a loadina dock. the walllenmh referred to in subsection
(10)(c)1.. below. shall exclude the wall area affiliated with the
loading and unloadinaof frelaht.
The amended language would limit the extent of the exemption by maintaining the groundfloor window
requirement on that portion of a 'wall which did not contain a loading dock.
#21; EC 9.2760: Fourplex lots exceeding the 13,500 sq. ft. limit. This issue is addressed in greater
detail in the e-mail response to Councilor Bettman. . The concern addresses the potential scenario in which
a subdivision application designates a fourplex lot, requiring at least 16,000 sq. ft., which is later
developed with a single-family residence, thereby exceeding the 13,500 sq. ft lot size limit.
Response: Staffis suggesting a revision to the proposed amendment to address this potential conflict.
This amendment would be within Table 9.2760:
Table 9.2760 Residential Zone Lot Standards
(See EC 9.2761 Special Standards for Table 9.2760.)
R.1 R4.5 R.2 R.3 R-4
Fourplex Lots (In R-1 , lots 16,000 -- - -- --
shall be indicated on the final square feet
subdivision plat and [sRalJ]
may be developed as a
fourplex, triplex, DC duplexlf
-~ _:_-,.... . .)
This revision would ensure that at least a duplex is constructed on these lots, thereby maintaining a more
efficient density.
#57; EC 9.6810: 600' block length adjustment. Concern was expressed that the proposed amendment
(allowing an adjustment to the 600' block length if all other street network needs are met) may be too
Page 2 of7
broad. It was suggested that additional qualifying language would help contain future adjustment reviews
to those involving "slightly" more than 600'.
Response: Staff suggests a revision to the proposed exception to read as follows;
9.6810
Block Length. Block length for local streets shall not exceed 600 feet,
unless [the developer demonstr3tes that a block length must be greater than
600 {-eet because of the existence of} an exception is granted based on
one or more of the following [conditions]:
(4) As part of a Type II or Type III process, the developer
demonstrates that a strict aDDJicatJon of the 6oo400t reauirement
would (theT resultfi!1IJ] ina street network lwilfnot ereate
eXGeSsivetravellengths and' that is no more beneficial to
vehicular. oedestrian or bicvcle. traffic than the groposed street
network and that the proQosed street network will accommodate
necessary emergency access.
Staff believes the revised language limits the extent of future requests in that the applicant must shm\! that
there would be no additional benefit by providing a shorter block length.
#59; EC 9.6820: Cm-de-sac requirements. Council discussed two separate amendments affecting cul-
de-sacs. First, concern was expressed with the proposed elimination of subsection (4) which limited cul-
de-sacs to 400 ft. in length. Second, Council asked for clarification on the proposed change to subsection
(5), which addresses the provision of public accessways from cul-de-sacs. The current language
"requires" public accessways. The proposed language states that they "may" be required.
Response; Staff's primary intent regarding this code section is to provide a more understandable set of
provisions regarding cul-de-sac standards. In doing so, staff looked to consolidate the provisions into
more discreet statements. Adding back the 400 fl. limita:,lion on cul-de-sac length would not affect this
intent. T1terefore, stqffrecommends that subsection (4) be added back. This would also necessitate
adding back a reference under subsection (6) to allow an exception to this standard (as is currently
allowed).
9.6820
Cul-de-Sacs or Emergencv Vehicle Turnarounds.
(1) Except for streets that are less than 150 feet long and streets that will
be extended in the future, 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 exception under section (1) beC3use it] will
be extended in the future, a temporary easement shall be provided and
an emergency vehicle turnaround shall be constructed[..ffi..a.R
alternative location].
(3) [If a street qualifies for an exception under section (1), a hammerhead
turnaround shall be substitLfted where possible.
(4}] T#)ere shall be no cul-de-.sacs more than 400 feet lono from the
centerline of the intersect/no street.to the radius Doint of the cul-
de-sac bulb.
(~ [The planning director shall require p]Public accessways to provide
safe circulation for pedestriansf bicyclists and emergency
vehicles may be required from a cul-de-sac or emergency vehicle
turnaround longer than 150' in length whenh] 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[.t:e
Page 3 of7
provide safe, convenient, and direct circulation for pedestrkms,
bicyclists, and emergeoc;y vehicles].
(8m As part of a Type II or Type 1/1 process, an exception [adjustment]
may be granted to the requirements of (1 >..m and (4l) of this section if
[consistent with the criterio for adjustment of EC 9.8030(12)(b) of this
land use code] because of the existence of one or more of the
fol/owing 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.
With regard to the change in subsection (5), staffhad concern that the statement "requiring" access ways
read as im absolute, Given the fact that such a requirement could only be implemented if consistent with
constitutional requirements (e.g. Dolanfindings). sttifJwas concerned that the statement did not reflect
the necessary legal limitations, The current language also appears to conflict with that in Section 9.6805,
Dedication of Public Ways, which states that the """ The City may require dedication of public waysfor
bicycle, pedestrian use... ".
Publie Testimony
Following the close of the public hearing on October 24,2005, the Councilleft the record open for one
week to allow the submittal of additional public testimony, Staff received 2 pieces of testimony (Kevin
Matthews, Friends of Eugene and Charles Biggs) which are included in the November 28,2005 Council
packet. To the extent possible, staff has provided a response to this testimony, Each statement will
highlight the concern identified in the testimony, followed by staff's response,
#2 - 9.5000; Curved lot definition. Testimony asserts that changing the definition could allow new
development.
Response: The code c.:urrently allows curved lots (lots on curved streets) with reduced lot frontage with
no definition of what constitutes a curve, Proposed language lvould ensure that only those lots on
"legitimate" curves would be eligible,
#3 - 9.5000, Development Site definition. Revised definition would include lots separated by a street
under the same ownership. Testimony expressed concern about the impact on fees and site-specific issues
being diluted in larger applications.
Response: The revised definition would ensure that a land use application is reviewed comprehensively.
Under the current rules, the city cannot require, or even allow, an application and review process ~f the
project happens to be separated by a street which was originally created through a land division. As an
example) {f the streets bisecting the Faith Center site (Polk Street) had been created through a land
division, the recent Conditional Use Permit/or their expansion would have required 3 separate CUP's,
each dealing with only a portion of the actual expansion concept. Staff believes the proposed change
benefits all parties by ensuring a comprehensive public process.
Page 4 of7
#6 - 9.5000; Lot width definition. Testimony expressed concern that the revised detinition will allow
additional lots to be developed.
Response: The revised lot width definition attempts to address a more logical place on the lot to measure
the true width of a lot (midway backfrom the front property line, rather than only 10 feet back). Staff
does not see any correlation between this change and the potential for additional/ots.
#8 - 9.2160; RV sales. Testimony noted concern in allowing RV sales as a pennitted use in the C-2
zone.
Response: Issue covered in attached e~mai/ response to Councilor Bettman.
#12 - 9.2171(11)(d); Outdoor display. Concern expressed that creation of adjustment review provision
win lead to rampant sign pollution.
Response: The proposed amendment addresses outdoor display rather than signs. The code currently
limits outdoor display to plant and garden supplies. The atnendment would allow consideration of
additional outdoor displays through an adjustment revievv process. Future reque..<;ts (beyond plant and
garden supplies) would need to submit aformalland use application, andju.stifY that their proposal is
consistent ~ith the intent of the commercial development standards.
#14 - 9.2171(15)(e), Ground floor windows/Loading Docks. Concern with proposed exemption.
Response: Issue covered under Council que..<;tions above.
#17 - 9.2450 (table), Trucking Terminals. Concern expressed about whether the current table needs to
be changed or whether it reflects true intent.
Response: This issue is partially covered in attached e-mail response to Councilor Bettman. With regard
to the que..\'tion of intent, it should be noted that any attempt to intentionally eliminate tnicking terminals
from I- 2 and I- 3 during LUCU would have involved significant discussion as such an amendment would
have banned thi.... use citywide.
#19 - 9.2741; Height limit. Testimony notes that the impact of this change should be explained for
public process.
Response: T7lis amendment clar(fies an existing provision in the Public Land (PL) zone, limiting the
height of buildings within 50}t. of a residential zone. The language would clarify that a building
straddling the 50foot line, would have to meet the reduced height limit for any portion of the building
within 50' ofa residential zone, but not for that portion outside of this 50/oot line.
#24 - 9.2761, Maximum lot size exception for natural resource protection. Concern was expressed
that this provision would reduce available tools for natural resource protection.
Response: T71e intent of this amendment is to enable greater opp011unityfor natural resource
preservation. Staff sees this being more applicable to smaller scale projects (such as partitions). Larger
projects, especially PUD 's, already have the ability to consider different options regarding lot
cOl!figurations.
#26 - 9. 775(1)~ Screening of flag lotfi. Testimony requests that the provision for screening along the
driveway of flag lots be added back into the code.
Re.~ponse: When LUCU was adopted, the Council modified the flag lot provisions, which included the
elimination of the screening requirement alongflag lot driveway. However, the "Purpose section" of the
Page 5 of7
flag lot standards, left in a reference to screening. Although the Purpose section hCL<; no regulatory effect,
the proposed amendment is intended to ensure consistency between the regulations and the intent.
#27 - 9.2795; Solar Setback. Testimony indicates that the proposed change is technically wrong and
reduces the opportunity for solar access.
Response: Thepurpose of the solar setback standard is to limit the shadow cast from a building on one
property, thereby enhancing solar access opportunities for neighboring properties. Staff agrees with the
public testimony that buildings on a steep south-facing lot cast shorter shadows than buildings on a steep
north-facing lot. However, the current code allows an exemption from the setbackfor north-facing lots
which produce the longest shadows. The amendment would correct what appears to be a mistaken
compass reference by focusing the exemption on lots that will produce less shade. In doing so, this
amendment will actually increase solar access opportunities.
#29 - 9.4730(3)/9.4830(2)(b); Site Review for wetland restoration projects. Testimony opposes the
proposed amendment to exempt wetland restoration projects from site review and request strengthening
regulations.
Response: Currently, wetland restoration projects require site review approval. These projects have all
been undertaken by the city or other public agencies withfederalfimds. Both the state andfederal
requirements for these projects have far exceeded our local site review process. As such, staff has seen
no additional benefit resultingfrom the site review process. 171e question for Council to consider is
whether there is value in maintaining this separate site review process?
#34 - 9.5500(9)(a); Open Space requirement. Testimony expresses concern that the proposed
amendment regarding minimum open space dimension is significant.
Response: The code currently has two conflicting provisions regarding open space. Staff views the
minimum area for common open space of 250 squarefeet as the key standard. A minimum dimension is
required as an additional means to ensure that the open space counted in this calculation is not too
narrow. The minimum dimension of 20 ft. would require 400 square feet. The proposed change to 15ft.
ensures consistency between these two standards.
#44 - 9.6420(3)(f)(1); Landscape requirement adjacent to parking structures. Comments question
why this provision should be changed, especially if there are ground floor windows.
Response: This question is partially addressed in the attached e-mail re'~lJOnse to Councilor Bettman.
With regard to the groundjloor windows, this requirement only applies to that portion of the parking
structure that does not contain commercial uses. There;fore, there would be no groundfloor windows
involved. The amendment attempts to ensure landscaping z) required where it has a reasonable chance of
survival and bene;fit.
#61- 9.6885; Certified Arborist requirement. The testimony received does not support the option of
allowing a licensed landscape architect to prepare tree preservation plans.
Response: Although the training and education requiredfor each profession is different, stafJbelieve
certified professionals in both fields possess the ability to create an effective tree preservation plan. This
change would not affect PUD 's, as the code L'Urrently re1Juires the design team to include both a certified
arborist and landscape architect.
#64 - 9.7110; Type I decisions. Testimony expressed concern that this would reduce public involvement
opportunities in favor of greater staff discretion.
Page 60f7
Response: This amendment does not affect any existing procedural or decision making requirements.
The amendment would address coriflicting language in the code to make it clear that conditions can be
placed on an approval of a Type I application. The most common example is a property line a4iustment
in which an easement may straddle the affected property line. In order to n'lOve the property line. staff
would require the easement to be moved accordingly.
#67 ~ 9.8010 (table); Refinement Plan adoption dates. Objection raised with the proposed amendment
which would remove reference to refinement plan dates.
Response: When an existing refinement plan is updated. aformal code amendment is also necessmy
simply to change the date referenced in the hmd use code. The proposed amendment would eliminate this
step. In addition, the dates shown in the code are not always easl1y referenced in the refinement plan
itself, and may also not reflect the actual adoption date.
#73 - 9.8310; Certified planner required for PUD teams. Comments ask what standard does apply?
Response: The code requires a PUD design team to include a licensed arborist, licensed architect,
licensed civil engineer, licensed landscape architect, licensed land survt.->yor and a member of the
American Institute of Certified Planners. There are no licensing requirements for Planners. While stqff
continues to encourage applicants to assemble solid teams) ultimately, the responsibility falls to the
applicant to include those profe..'isionals necessary to make their best case for their projects.
#74 - 9.8335; Modification to Tentative PUD's. Testimony objects to the modification provision,
noting that other multiple opportunities for modifications exist.
Response: While the PUD process allows flexibility }vith respect to development standards, the
modification process serves a completely different purpose. 'flle modification process enables an
applicant to request minor changes to an approved plan. This process does not enable waivers or
rela:mtion of development standards. The code currently provides a modification processfor other Type
III applications such as CUP's and Willamette Greenway Permits, as well as other Type II applications.
The PUD is made up of two distinct steps; Tentative PUD and Final PUD. The code currently allows
mod(fications to Final PUD 's, but not the Tentative PUD. The amendment wouM allow an applicant the
opportunity to request a minor modification of an approved Tentative PUD, consistent with other
applications. Without this amendment. applicants seeking a modification must submit a final PUD for a
design they do not wish to build, so that they can then request a modification of the, final PUD.
Page 7 of7
ATTACHMENTF
friends of eugene
31 October, 2005
Mayor and City Council of Eugene, Oregon
c/o Planning Division
99 W. 10th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
re: Friends of Eugene Comments on Minor Land Use Code Amendments
City Council Public Hearing
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Many of the current staff-proposed Minor Land Use Code Amendments (MLUCAs) are
indeed minor. Too many are not. It is deeply problematic, confusing to the public, and
perhaps ultimately deceptive to promulgate a long series of small policy changes under
the guise of, and public process appropriate to, making simple corrections.
The business-as-usual attitude that seems to have allowed these amendments to be
pushed forward to this point with little to no actual general public involvement, and
over the repeated sincere objections of public interest participants, is also deeply
discouraging.
It appears to be inaccurate to say "the Planning Commission held a series of public
work sessions" as stated in the Findings of consistency with statewide planning Goal
One. It is also misleading to say that "any amendment which posed a concern with a
commissioner was allowed limited discussion (ten minutes)" when that was typically the
entire agenda time allotted for a whole batch of proposed amendments.
This is a description of the minor code amendments process, quoted from a staff memo
to the Eugene Planning Commission (Nystrom 2005.0214):
"The Planning Commission accepted the following format for review of the Minor
Fixes:
Establish a standing agenda item on Planning Commission schedule for the next
few months.
Place a bundle of suggested amendments (10-15 per agenda) on consent calendar
(or similar format) for each meeting.
Suggested amendments will be in form of narrative direction, not specific code
language.
Allow minimal time on each agenda for staff explanation of any amendments, if
requested by Planning Commission. If the majority of the Commission has
concerns with a particular item, that amendment will be pulled from the agenda
and included with Key Amendments.
Planning Commission will accept the staff recommendation of those remaining
items.
Friend of Eugene -10/31/05 - Page 1
A single public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission at the end of
their review on all Minor Fixes. Staff expects this public hearing to occur in late
winter or early spring. Public notice and outreach will occur prior to that
hearing."
A series of compound consent agenda items is not the same as a "series of public work
sessions". For the Council to approve the proposed Findings that equate these would
represent a sad new low in public involvement accountability in our city.
The format of the Planning Commission "sessions" was entirely staff driven: At each of
a long string of EPe meetings where MLUCAs were considered, within a ten minute
agenda item, as I recall, staff gave a list of about a dozen MLUCAs,Hsted together in a
single usually one-page table, in conceptual language only, with a format that only if a
majority of Commissioners disagreed with an item would it be pulled out for more
discussion. More than 90% of items were presented by staff and received no discussion
at all.
FoE made public comment repeatedly (about half a dozen times) listing items that we
thought were not minor, and criticizing the psuedo~review process. No changes were
made to the process, and very few to the specific items of concern.
We also asked for a full list of the items so we could review them for cumulative impact,
and none was made available during the Planning Commission "study period" - only
just before the EPC hearing.
In the public interest, Friends of Eugene would greatly appreciate some kind of City
Council direction to staff to the effect that an imbalanced, inaccessible code amendment
process is not what the Eugene community is looking for, and should not be repeated.
Many of the items represent small policy changes and small expansions of development
rights that staff thinks are fair and reasonable. FoE does not think such policy changes
should be lumped in with corrections in this way that has limited public input, proceeds
without substantive findings to support the policy changes, and obscures their
cumulati ve impact.
We were surprised that the public hearing went ahead without further process after the
city council motion to hold code changes pending exploration of givings recapture.
Many more than three of these proposed code changes woulld potentially increase
property values.
Many - perhaps most - of the proposed code changes potentially could functionally
relax code requirements. Following is a list of Friends of Eugene comments on specific
proposed items.
Following are some brief comments on the list of proposed changes.
1 - 9.05000 - Seems minor.
Friend of Eugene · 10131/05 · Page 2
2 - 9.05000 - Curved lot definition. Changing definition could allow new development
opportunities.
3 - 9.0500 - Sites cross streets. Does reducing number of sites mean a drop in application
fees? When do certain site-specific issues become diluted in larger applications? What
else changes? May not be minor.
4 - 9.05000 - Seems minor.
5 - 9.05000 - Seems minor.
6 - 9.0500 - Changing lot width definition will allow additional lots to be developed
which would otherwise not be allowed. The implications of additional scattershot infill,
when our established neighborhoods are already suffering badly under infill without
design standards, will cause negative consequences that should be quantified before
approval, and which the community should have a real chance to weigh in on. Not
minor.
7 - 9.05000 - Seems minor.
8 - 9.2160 - Allow RV sales w / 0 CUP in C-2 zones. This is a pure policy change, not a
correction. The impact of RV sales on surrounding properties is categorically different
from the impact of automobile or small vehicles sales because of the large bulk of
recreational vehicles. This could cause negative consequences that should be quantified
before approval, and could cause an increase in property sales or lease opportunities,
and thus in proerty values. Community should have a real chance to weigh in before
this change.
9 - 9.2161(1) - Mayor may not be good idea - but will allow additional and larger
projects.
10 - 9.2171 (5)(c) - Facade within setback requirements - depends how clarified...
11 - 0.2171(5) - Seems minor.
12 - 9.2171(1td) 9.8030 - New process would allow additional outdoor displays
13 - 9.2171(15)(e) - Seems minor.
14 - 9.2171(15)e - Exempt loading dock wall from windows - effectively seems to be a
huge policy change with potentially huge impact!
15 - 9.2180, etc. -Undetermined impact
16 - 9.2450(table) - Seems minor. (correction) ?
*17 - 9.2450(table) - Allow trucking terminals outright - should table just be changed, or
does existing table indicate the true intent? How did the public know during LUCU
Friend of Eugene · 10/31/05 · Page 3
that this was an outright permitted use?
18 - 9.2683{2) - Clarify non-need for duplicate review. Minor.
*19 - 9.2741 - Allow greater height of some buildings which straddle zones. Impact of
change should be explained for public process.
21 - 9.2761(6) - Change from 'shall' to 'may'. Implications dubious.
23 - Policy change which FoE approves of, because of current lack of infill design
standards to provide density with quality.
*24 - 9.2761(5){d) - Rather than allow larger lot sizes for natural resource protection,
subdivisions and PUDs should create separate conservation area lots. Preferring
separate lots for conservation areas at the time of subdivision is current practice in the
city, as applied by the planning department under the current code, as it is believed to
better protection. Changing this code provision is not minor, and by reducing the
available tools for natural resource protection, would cause negative consequences that
should be quantified before approval, and which the community should have a real
chance to weigh in on.
25 - 9.2761{6) - Seems minor.
26 - 9.2775(1) - Screening of flag lots. Instead of deleting important language on
screening from the purpose statement, specific provisions for screening, accidentally
left out of the code, should now be added.
27 - 9.2795 - Solar setback changes. The proposed change appears to be wrong,
technically, based on its own explanation. Buildings on a steep south-facing slope
cast short shadows. Buildings on a steep north-facing slope cast very long shadows.
29 - 9.4730(3), 9.4830(2,b) - We should maintain local site review because state and
federal requirements could change. A sweeping federal case that could undo national
protections is in fact currently before the US Supreme Court. If local wetland
protections requirements are indeed weaker, then they should be strengthened, not
dropped.
30 - 9.5250(1){b) - Clarification which is in itself unclear prevents reasonable public
involvement.
31- 9.5350 - Consider impacts of standards in industrial zones.
32 - 9.5350 - Appears to be minor.
33 - 9.5500{8){a) - Undetermined impact.
*34 - 9.5S00(9)(a)S, 9.5S00(9)(c)2 - Significant multifamily housing quality issue:
Reduction in width of minimum open space down to only 15' is not trivial. Maybe
Friend of Eugene · 10/31/05 · Page 4
minimum square footage should be increased to match instead.
35,36,37 - Seems minor.
38 - Seems minor.. But, why does this need to be specified?
39, 40, 41 - Seems minor.
42 - Dropped from list?
43 - Seems minor.
44 - 9.6420(3)(f)(1) - What is wrong with a landscape strip "wedged" between two
buildings? Esp. if some of such buildings are required to have ground floor windows
there? There are many potential benefits to such landscaping strips, and dropping
them summarily is an un warranted policy.
45 - 9.6610(1) - Seems minor.
46 - 9.6610(1) - Seems minor.
47 - 9.6610(1), 9.6615 - Impact undetermined.
48, 49, 50 - Seems minor.
51 - Seems minor. signs should be defined to determine range of staff discretion.
52 - 9.6709 - Flood standards. Automatically matching federal changes is not
automatically minor.
53 - 9.6730(4) - Adjustment of pedestrian circulation.
54 - 9.6745 - Allows intrusions into setbacks.
57 - 9.6810(4) - Block lengths greater than 600 feet. Are standards for approving
exemptions clear and appropriate?
58 - 9.6815 - More flexible street connectivity standards. Impact undetermined.
59 - 9.6820 - Changes cul-de-sac requirements. Are clarifications dear and appropriate?
60 - Consistent, but consistent how?
61 - 9.6885 - Substitute LA for arbors. Policy change. Impact undetermined.
62 - 9.7020 - Seems minor.
63 - 9.7020 - Seems minor.
Friend of Eugene · 10131/05 · Page 5
* 64 - 9.7110 - Planning director can approve with conditions. Will allow more
applications to be approved - implications unclear.
65 - 9.7605,9.7655 - Seems minor. (clarification of deadlines)
66 - 9.7805, 9.7885 - Industrial corridor map and description. Implications unclear.
67 - 9.8010 (table) - Friends of Eugene is opposed to trus change. If adopted dates for
applicable plans are not shown in the code, then it is very difficult for the public to
know when they are looking at the correct plan. Couldn't a pro-forma code
amendment be bundled with plan approval, to keep them synchronized without undue
expense?
68, 69 - 9.8030(1) - Timing and requirements for TOM plans. Do we want to make these
mushier?
70 - 9.8030(10) - Check for clarity and completeness after revision.
71 - 9.8055(1) - Cluster Subdivisions: relaxation of lot and development standards.
Check details.
72 - 9.8090(8)(c) - Street connectivity-related approval criteria. Implications unclear.
73 - 9.8310 - PUD design doesn't have be done by certified planner. What standard does
apply?
* 74 - 9.8335 - Allows modification of a tentative PUD approvaL Implications unclear.
75 - 9.8410(1) - Property Line Adjustment surveyors stamp. Minor
76 - 9.810(2) - Property Line Adjustment title report. Minor.
77 - 9.8580 - Final Subdivision Requirements modification procedure. Implications
unclear.
78 - 9.8710 - Vacations of improved right of way. Adding process.
79 - 9.8710(6) - ROW vacation consents.
80 - 9.8710(7) - Consent of public utility easement vacations.
81 - 9.8720 - Seems minor.
The stated findings in support of these code changes with regard to state planning goals
3 through 11 are so inadequate they are often simply solipsistic. Code changes are
minor, so there are no impacts. So where is a substantive analysis that each change is
Friend of Eugene · 10/31/05 · Page 6
actually minor? (GoalS does not apply? Yet there are changes to natural resource
protections!) Such analysis, stated clearly on the public record for review and
disucssion, is one of the essential purposes of the findings requirement.
We hope that the City of Eugene will change this process. Our city code is not a term
paper, to be edited in a back room and submitted for approval without explanation.
Respectfully,
Kevin Matthews
President, Friends of Eugene
matthews@artifice.com
PO Box 1588, Eugene, OR 97440
c/o 541-345-7421 vox, c/o 541-345-7438 fax
http://www.FriendsofEugene.org
Friend of Eugene · 10/31/05 · Page 7
Charles Biggs Public Testimony
October 31, 2005
Mayor and City Council of Eugene, Oregon
c/o Planning Division
99 W. 10th Avenue
Eugene, OR 9740 1
re: Charles Biggs Comments on Minor Land Use Code Amendments
City Council Public Hearing
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Many of the current staff-proposed Minor Land Use Code Amendments
(MLUCAs) are
indeed minor. Many are not. Many go against creating a livable community that we
all can be proud of. As we grow denser, an individual approach will begin to take
precedence and code changes like these will becOlne more numerous and
cumbersome.
Sign codes are relaxed which will lead to rampant sIgn pollution. (EC
9.2l71(ll,d) 9.8030)
RV sale lots that once required a conditional use permit, now will be pen11itted
outright, which will lead to 40 teet long billboards in the form of R V lined end to
end for business advertising. (EC 9.2160)
Reduced opportunities for public involvement in favor of Planning Director or
Staff discretionary approvals will lead to more public acrimony. (EC 9.7110)
The Mayor's SBI (Sustainability Business Initiative) on renewable energy will be
seen as a sham if solar setback changes that are proposed are approved. These
changes reduce the amount and opportunity of the potential renewable energy that
would be free to harvest. This act of approval run counter to prudent sustainability
goals. (EC 9.2795)
Minor code changes should not be used to assist a pending project such as the
Multi-Modal Freight Facility. (EC 9.2450)
Altering the definition of curved lots, without individual notices being sent to
property owners should not be allowed to happen. This would create corner lots
that most people would normally consider not to be a comer lot; thereby impacting
the owners ability to develop the property. This and all other changes in definitions
have a Measure 37 impact potential and should be removed from the list. I own
such a lot that is proposed for the change and if not for my watchful eyes and extra
ordinary community involvement, I would not have been aware that my property
was to be affected. I still do not fully lmow the ramifications of such a change;
maybe an explanation is in order? (EC 9.05000)
Modifications of a tentative PUD (Planned Unit Development) approval is already
too lax. There are already provisions in the code for multiple modifications to be
made concurrently. I have experienced this, as a Neighborhood President of Cal
Young Neighborhood Association during the proposed Crescent Village. As a
result of the multiple concurrent modifications approved, was a development that
turned it back on the community by placing excessive parking in the front of the
main entrance along Crescent Avenue and removing and/or limiting entrances
from Crescent Avenue, which serves the center of the node! (EC 9.8335)
Adjustment review is also similar to modifications and should not be approved
lightly. (EC 9.711 0)
As we strive for greater density and better livability, one key is how we direct
allocation of open space in developments. Reduction in the width of minimum
open space downward to fifteen feet greatly affects the sense of scale of both
building and open space and need to be evaluated on an individual case by case
bases. This is especially true in multifamily design. (EC 9.5500(9)(a)5,
9.5500(9)(c)2)
Qualification substitutions such as an arhorist for a Landscape Architect should not
be approved, because an arborist is generally skilled in plants not the
interrelationship of built and natural environment. Arborists have their own special
roles, do not diminish the respect of either profession by making them
interchangeable. (Ee 9.6885)
Respectfully,
Charles Biggs
540 Antelope Way,
Eugene, OR 97401