HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication Materials (1-6-20)JANISCH Amy C
From: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 9:14 AM
To: WHITMILL Kelly E
Cc: HANSEN Alissa H; Ted Coopman; SEMPLE Emily
Subject: ZVR 20-1 (CONTE) Additional application materials #3
Attachments: ZVR 20-1 (CONTE) Additional application material #3.pdf; LA 06-10 .pdf; CC Minutes PH 26 Sept
1977.pdf, ORDINANCE NO. 9188.pdf
[EXTERNAL 0]
Kelly,
Please confirm receipt of the four attached documents and include them as application materials for ZVR
20-1.
Because of size limitations, I will send Ordinance No. 18081 in a following e-mail.
As you'll see from the bullet list in the attached document, there are several City documents that I was
unable to locate. None of these are necessary for a legal finding that the C-2 zone doesn't conform with the
comprehensive plan; however, the legislative history does provide a better understanding of the issues.
For example, Ordinance No. 18081 really nails down the City Council's motivation and intent in
implementing a "generic" "MU Multiple Use District" and then applying it in 1977 by adopting the "Downtown
Westside Multiple Use District" and rezoning much of the Westside area covered by the Metro Plan's "Mixed
Use Areas" overlay.
I will be submitting another "Application Material" document that fully covers the requirements imposed by
the comprehensive plan designations and policies restricting the "Eastern Residential /Mixed Use Area" to
either "Residential" or "Mixed Uses," as covered in the attached document.
I think it would be constructive to have a discussion regarding this issue prior to completing findings and a
decision. County staff had stated to the Lane County Board of Commissioners in a formal document that the
City "agrees" that the proposed MAT clinic is a permitted use. However, comments by their consultant, Colin
McArthur, were seriously misinformed about the actual polices, code and case law.
As the next document will explain, an erroneous interpretation of the statutes, plan and land use code
would have extereme implications for all areas with a "Residential" designation (except where protected by
CCBtRs, of course).
Let me know if staff is amenable to having a similar conversation as was apparentlty provided to the County
staff.
Thank you,
Paul
541.344.2552
Accredited Earth Advantage
Sustainable Homes Professional
ZVR 20-1 (Conte) Additional application material #3
This document adds further evidence that clearly demonstrates that the City's intent and
implementation of the "Mixed Use Areas" overlay on the Metro Plan's Plan Diagram does not permit the
"Drug Treatment Center - Non-residential" use on the subject site.
Missing public documents and information
Although the analysis below is based on substantial evidence adequate for a reasonable person to reach
the various conclusions, a number of relevant documents were missing from the City's on-line document
archive. These documents include:
• "Eugene Downtown Westside Alternatives Report" (July 1976)
• "1974 Community Goals and Purposes"
• Attachments A, B, C and D of the "Preliminary Staff Notes - Eugene Planning Commission"
(July 12, 1977)
• The ordinance(s) that made the following amendments to the land use code:
o First changed the C-1 and C-2 names and permitted uses that were in the 1948 version of
the land use code, particularly the change from "C-2 Neighborhood Commercial District" to
either "C-2 General Commercial District" or "C-2 Community Commercial District."
o First changed the zoning for lot(s) within the subject property to "C-2."
o First added "Drug Treatment Clinic - Non-residential" as a use in a commercial or other
zone(s).
• Building permits for the current structure from 1969 and later.
• The use, if any, of tax lots 500 and 600 at the time that Ordinance No. 18081 was adopted.
Intent and implementation of the "Mixed Use Areas" overlay on the Metro Plan's Plan Diagram
As stated in "ZVR xx-x (Conte) Additional application material #2," submitted previously, the subject site,
Tax Map / Lot 17-03-31-3100100, is designated as "Medium Density Residential" ("MDR") with a "Mixed
Use Areas" overlay on the Metro Plan's Plan Diagram.
The Metro Plan describes "Mixed Used" as follows:
"Mixed Uses
"This category represents areas where more than one use might be appropriate, usually as
determined by refinement plans on a local level. (For example, the Whiteaker Refinement Plan
includes several areas where a mix of compatible uses, based in part on existing development, are
designated.) In the absence of a refinement plan, the underlying plan designation shall determine
the predominant land use." Page II-G-12.
The Westside Neighborhood Plan labels the area as "Eastern Residential/Mixed Use Area." Page 3-4.
Both the MDR designation and Policy 1 for the "Eastern Residential/Mixed Use Area" (page 3-8)
unequivocally establish that the "predominant use" in this "Mixed Use" area is medium-density
residential. The Metro Plan MDR designation is a "Residential" designation, in which the Metro Plan
provides that a limited "area is available for auxiliary uses, such as * * * * * neighborhood commercial
services * * * * * if compatible with refinement plans, zoning ordinances, and other local controls for
allowed uses in residential neighborhoods."
ZVR 20-1 (Conte) Additional Application Material #3 Page 1 January 6, 2010
"Residential
This category is expressed in gross acre density ranges. Using gross acres, approximately 32 percent
of the area is available for auxiliary uses, such as streets, elementary and junior high schools,
neighborhood parks, other public facilities, neighborhood commercial services, and churches not
actually shown on the Metro Plan Diagram. Such auxiliary uses shall be allowed within residential
designations if compatible with refinement plans, zoning ordinances, and other local controls for
allowed uses in residential neighborhoods" 2004 Metro Plan page II-G-3.
This adopted text is identical, except for minor edits, to the same statement in the 1982 version of the
Metro Plan. See 1992 Metro Plan page II-E-2.
Together these elements of the comprehensive plan designations and policies constrain what is allowed
in a "Mixed Use" area. The first thing to note is that the Westside Neighborhood Plan clarifies the intent
of the "MU Mixed Use District."
Policy 2. "The City shall continue to recognize that the MU Mixed Use District was initially
applied to properties zoned C-2 Community Commercial in order to foster concentration of
commercial uses within the downtown area and to encourage medium- density residential uses
in the Westside. * * * * Page 3-8. (Underlining added.)
By the time the City Council approved the Westside Neighborhood Plan in 1987 (Ordinance No. 19444),
the City Council had already taken steps in 1977 to implement a mixed use district consistent with the
Metro Plan and which district would also be consistent with the Westside Neighborhood Plan, when that
refinement plan was adopted a decade later.
As cited above, the Metro Plan also requires that any non-residential use in a "Residential" area not only
conform to refinement plan policies, but also to "zoning ordinances." The subject lot and those around it
were originally zoned "R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District" in the 1948 "Comprehensive Zoning
Plan" of the City of Eugene," adopted by Ordinance No. 9188. This version of the R-3 zone did not allow
clinics of any form; clinics were allowed only in the "CR Commercial Residential District" and the "C-1
Limited Commercial District."
Also note that the original 1948 "C-2" zone was "C-2 Neighborhood Commercial District," which did not
allow clinics. (At some time later, the "C" zones were substantially re-organized, and ultimately C-1
became the "Neighborhood Commercial Zone" and C-2 became the "Community Commercial Zone.")
Thus, the historical starting point of R-3, C-1 and C-2 zoning did not allow clinics.
The findings that City Council adopted in Ordinance No. 18081 provide more information on the zoning
history of the area encompassing the subject site:
"When zoning was initially adopted by the City in 1948, the property east of Washington Street was
zoned R-3 up to the alley between Lincoln and Lawrence streets and extending north from 13th
Avenue to the midpoint of the block between 8th Avenue and 7th Avenue, property east of that
alley was zoned commercially. The R-3 zoning remained relatively stable until the early 1960's when
the City began to receive a number of requests for commercial zoning, particularly during the period
of 1963-1966. On July 5, 1965, the Planning Commission adopted a policy of favorable consideration
of zone change requests converting the R-3 zoning to commercial zoning in this area. Through a
process of considering zone changes on a lot-by-lot basis, the present zoning pattern was
established by 1970.
ZVR 20-1 (Conte) Additional Application Material #3 Page 2 January 6, 2010
"By 1970 the City recognized the need to re-examine both the previous policies affecting this area
and the results of these policies." Ordinance No. 18081 page 1-1.
The specific action and date when the tax lots that now constitute the eastern part of the subject lot
were rezoned to "C-2" and the purpose and uses of that version of the "C-2" zone have not been made
available by the City as of this analysis.
What is known from the findings of Ordinance No. 18088 is that on March 7, 1972, the Eugene Planning
Commission voted unanimously to "re-examine the [Westside] area and correct the zoning." (See
Ordinance No. 18081 findings, page 1-2. Underlining added.) A series of intensive studies followed,
including the "Eugene Downtown Westside Alternatives Report" in July, 1976, and the 1974 Community
Goals and Purposes. Those documents have not yet been made available by the City.
On November 28, 1977, the City implemented the Metro Plan's "Mixed Use Areas" overlay by adopting
Ordinance No. 18081 and applying the "Downtown Westside Mixed Use District" to "[p]roperties
located between 7th and 13th Avenues, extending from Washington Street east past Lincoln Street,"
including a substantial area comprising the western portion of the subject site. Below is an excerpt of
the map on the last page of "Exhibit D" of Ordinance No. 18081 depicting the north half of the block
immediately south of W. 11th Ave., which contains the subject site. The criss-crosses to the east of
Washington Street indicate the area that was rezoned to "Downtown Westside Mixed Use District.
Below is an excerpt from a Tax Map 17-03-31-31 circa 2006, which shows the original tax lots on the
referenced half block: 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, and 800. At the time Ordinance No. 18081 was
adopted, the half block appears to have comprised the following tax lots: Some mix of lots 100, 200,
201, 300 and 400 forming the eastern portion of the half block, with distinct lots 500, 600, 700, and 800
forming the western portion of the half block.
4415'5 :a, to• 1 ~a oa,eo
700 0 31 -496- 31 398- 2
100
C f ! ie
a m~ ~ mf
! ! ! (m 2191
ts.~ 51'f M! _
T3.G• eo • ~ . r -
0 0 101 M ! ~A&
5 4y
bG.67'
8' e
ZVR 20-1 (Conte) Additional Application Material #3 Page 3 January 6, 2010
Ordinance No. 18081, found that "the proposed change of zone meets all the criteria set forth in Section
9.478 of the Eugene Code for application of the MU Mixed Used District"; and the ordinance rezoned tax
lots 500, 600, 700 and 800 to the "Downtown Westside Mixed Use District" set forth in Exhibit D of the
ordinance. As the map excerpt above shows, this action imposed the "Downtown Westside Mixed Use
District" on the western portion of the subject lot.
The "Downtown Westside Mixed Use District" was reclassified effective August 1, 2011 to the "S-DW
Downtown Westside Special Area Zone." EC 9.1045. The S-DW Zone does not permit the "Drug
Treatment Clinic- Non-residential" use. Any other form of "Clinic" or "Residential Treatment Center"
requires a Conditional Use Permit.
9.3210 S-DW Downtown Westside Special Area Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements. The
following Table 9.3210 S-DW Downtown Westside Special Area Zone Uses and Permit Requirements
identifies those uses in the S-DW zone that are:
(P) Permitted, subject to zone verification.
(C) Subject to an approved conditional use permit or an approved final planned unit development.
Table 9.3210
S-DW Downtown Westside Special Area Zone Uses and Permit Requirements
I
S-DW
Medical, Health, and Correctional Services
Hospital, Clinic, or other Medical
C
Health Treatment Facility (including
Mental Health) 10,000 square feet
or less of floor area
Nursing Home
P
Residential Treatment Center
C
Sometime prior to February 23, 2006, lots 100, 200, 201, 300, 400, and 500 were consolidated into the
single tax lot 100. The following is an excerpt from the Property Line Adjustment application (City file
LA 06-10) filed on that date:
List all Assessor's Map and Tax Lot numbers of the property included in the request.
Assessor's Ma
Tax Lot
Zonin
Fxistiiik use"
17033131
100
C-2/SR
Commercial
17033131
600
S/SR
Vacant
17033131
800
S/SR
Residential
S~:r P( z wWPS Wt5tskj`
Note that the consolidated Lot 100, which presently constitutes the subject lot is listed with two
zonings: the C-2 zoning with an /SR Site Review overlay and an "Downtown Westside Mixed Use
ZVR 20-1 (Conte) Additional Application Material #3 Page 4 January 6, 2010
District" zoning with an /SR Site Review overlay. The specific action and date that added the /SR overlays
have not been determined.
Below is an excerpt from the current Tax Map 17-03-31-31 which shows the tax lots that now exist on
the referenced half block, i.e., 100, 700 and 800.
514 LJI I
700 400 'i 7 `I &QQ I
I
I 100
I I I~<
I I I I I
800 i 20g
I r I I`
1 ' I I 1 rR
I I
I ~ 5 U
900 1200 1300 1400 1 00
1
yI
s
1000 _
6 ~ F20 11100
y1 As indicated on the LA 06-10 application and confirmed in the RLID (Regional Land Information
Database), the subject site - tax lot 100 - has split zoning. The western portion (original lots 500 and
600) is zoned S-DW Downtown Westside Mixed Use Special Area Zone with an /SR Site Review Overlay.
The remaining eastern portion is zoned C-2 Community Commercial with an /SR Site Review Overlay.
(See attached RLID report. Refer to City files Z-72-0047 & Ordinance No. 16653 and Z-76-0038 &
Ordinance No. 18081.)
K u
k
Conclusions
What this evidence clearly shows is that, with respect to the implications of the Metro Plan's "Mixed Use
Areas" overlay, the direct effect is that the S-DW zoning prohibits the area with this zoning from a
primary use as a "Drug Treatment Clinic." As explained below, the S-DW zoning as prohibits "accessory
uses" (such as parking, storage, etc.) that would be "incidental" to a prohibited primary use.'
In addition, the Metro Plan's "Mixed Use Areas" overlay in no way broadens what is allowed on the
portion of the site that is zoned C-2/SR. As demonstrated in the legislative history of the S-DW zone, it's
purpose and explicit limit on uses was intended to "place primary emphasis on maintenance of existing
housing and encouragement of additional high-density residential development. As a secondary
purpose, the proposed district permits continuation of existing small businesses and some limited
additional commercial and office development." Ordinance No. 18081 Findings page I-5.
Finally, the extensive excerpts below from the adopted findings of Ordinance No. 18081 provide
additional, compelling evidence of the City Council's intent in their implementation of the "Mixed Use
Areas" overlay in the "Eastern Residential/Mixed Use Area."
"Under the mixed use district concept approved by the City Council, each specific application of the
district must be tailored to the particular area to which it is being applied. This feature allows
flexibility so that the uses permitted and the development standards required can be adjusted to
best achieve the City's adopted policies while reflecting the particular circumstances peculiar to
different areas within the City"
"The proposed mixed use district for the Downtown Westside area includes the following elements:
"1. Description and Purpose Section
"The Description and Purpose Section lists the basic objectives the district is intended to
achieve. In this case, the purposes place primary emphasis on maintenance of existing housing
and encouragement of additional high-density residential development. As a secondary
purpose, the proposed district permits continuation of existing small businesses and some
limited additional commercial and office development. * * * *
' The EC 9.0500 definition of "Accessory Use" is "[a] use incidental to the primary use of the
development site. Table 9.3210 includes "Accessory Uses. Examples related to non-residential uses
include storage and distribution incidental to the primary use of the site." The "development site" or
"site" in this case is the "undivided tract of land" comprising Lot 100. Because the "Drug Treatment
Clinic - Non-residential use is not permitted on the undivided "site," no accessory use incidental a
non-permitted use is allowed.
ZVR 20-1 (Conte) Additional Application Material #3 Page 6 January 6, 2010
"2. Use Section.
* * * *
"a. Outright Uses
* * * * Finally, the proposed district would permit continuation of commercial and office
uses existing as of the effective date of the ordinance.21, (Underlining added.) 1-5
* * * * the primary purpose of the proposed mixed use district is to facilitate conversion from
commercial zoning to a zoning district that places primary emphasis on high-density residential
development." 1-7
"The existing zoning for the majority of the lots in the area to be rezoned is in conflict with the
General Plan and other applicable policies adopted by the city.
"Of the 125 lots involved in this proposed rezoning, 120 are presently zoned C-2. The evaluation and
findings set forth subsequently in these Staff notes under Section 9.676(a) (see pages 11-19)
demonstrate that the existing zoning for a majority of the lots is in conflict with the General plan
and other applicable policies adopted by the City. The General Plan and other policies adopted by
the City clearly indicate that high-density residential development is appropriate in this area rather
than commercial development. Ordinance 18081 pages 1-8 and 9.
"The specific uses which would be permitted within this application of the mixed use district are set
forth in Attachment "A'. Those uses involve primarily residential uses, offices uses, and some limited
commercial uses. The commercial uses were specifically reviewed to insure [sic] that they did not
have external impacts (noise, traffic generation, and other adverse effects) which would be
disfunctional [sic] in terms of residential development." Ibid. page 1-9
"The effect of the proposed uses and development standards in this application of the mixed use
district may be compared with the effect of the present C-2 regulations governing the area. Under
the present C-2 regulations, it is possible to remove existing housing, construct office or commercial
buildings surrounded by asphalt without any form of review (such as the recent development at the
northwest corner of 13th and Lincoln). That form of development is completely contrary to the basic
objectives established in the General Plan and other city policies for the area. Further, development
that is consistent with the basic policies adopted by the city (such as the proposed development of
the block bounded by Washington and Lawrence, 8th and Broadway) must undergo special review
through the conditional use permit process. Under the proposed mixed use district, development
that is completely consistent with the basic policy objectives governing this area would be permitted
as an outright use, new commercial or office use would have to be combined with residential use
and specially reviewed, and exclusive commercial use would be eliminated (except in certain very
limited cases). Thus, the proposed district would reverse the present situation in the area." Ibid.
page 1-11.
"2. The 1974 Community Goals and Policies emphasize the importance of the compact growth form
with the following policy statement: 'In order to alleviate potential problems of growth, the City of
Eugene should increase its efforts to preserve, restore, and improve residential quality of inner city
neighborhoods by rezoning unneeded and undesirable city commercial and industrial zoning to
residential uses.' (1974 Community Goals and Policies, page 9)." Ibid. page 1-12.
2 The building on the subject site was designed as general offices and was occupied and used by the
State of Oregon for administrative employee offices at the time Ordinance No. 18081 was adopted.
ZVR 20-1 (Conte) Additional Application Material #3 Page 7 January 6, 2010
"7. The 1990 General Plan Diagram indicates provision for a high-density residential area between
the Washington-Jefferson corridor and the central business district (pages 19-20)." Ibid. page 1-13.
"1. There is no other area, considered as a whole , in the central Eugene area where the conflict
between existing commercial zoning and the City's adopted plans prevail as it does in this area.
Therefore, consideration of other areas, if there were such areas, would not resolve the conflicts in
this particular area." Ibid. page 1-19.
"The property involved in this proposed rezoning has been studied at length by the City. That study
indicates that the adopted General Plan and Community Goals and Policies clearly require
establishment of zoning in the area that emphasizes high-density residential use as the predominant
form of development." Ibid.
Subsequent submissions of additional application materials will elaborate on the following additional
implication of the "split zoning." Because the subject site is an undivided tract of land, specifically a
single tax lot, the entire lot is the "site" or "development site" with respect to permitted use(s). A single
"site" cannot have a non-permitted use on the site.
Eugene Code defines "Develop" as * * * * 'Develop includes, but is not limited to, new building,
building alterations or additions, site improvements, or a change in use. Accordingly changing the use
from "Administrative, General, and Professional Office" to "Drug Treatment Clinic - Non-residential"
and remodeling the current structure to serve as a clinic" would constitute "development."
"Development Site" is defined as "[a] tract of land under common ownership or control, either
undivided or consisting of two or more contiguous lots of record," obviously on which "development"
occurs or is proposed.
The S-DW Zone addresses "uses" on a "site":
9.3205 S-DW Downtown Westside Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. In addition to the
approval criteria at EC 9.8865 Zone Change Approval Criteria, the site must be planned for a
special mix of uses in the Westside Neighborhood Plan.
When Ordinance No. 18081 rezoned individual lots 500, 600, 700 and 800 to the "Downtown Westside
Mixed Use District," they were distinct from lot 100, and the rezoning complied with EC 9.3205.
However, when lots 500 and 600 were incorporated into lot 100, that did not somehow "magically"
allow C-2 uses (or any other non-S-DW uses) to encroach on the area that was formerly lots 500 and
600. Since a "change of use" is "development" and the "development site" is the entire undivided tract,
at the very least there must be no encroachment of a non-permitted use or uses incidental to a non-
permitted use (such as storage or parking) onto the S-DW portions of lot 100.
This zoning principle can perhaps be best understood by considering how the "Accessory Building" use
must be treated in a similar split-zoning situation. "Accessory Building is defined as: "[a]ny authorized,
detached building subordinate to the main building on the same development site." (Underlining
added.) Several base zone categories, including "Employment and Industrial" (Table 9.2450), "PRO"
(Table 9.2640), and "Residential" (Table 9.2740) allow buildings - including offices, storage and
maintenance buildings - under "Accessory Uses," which buildings would be "Accessory Buildings." If the
code allowed a storage building on the S-DW zoned portion of the subject lot, ostensibly as an
"accessory building" for a primary use on the other portion of the lot (e.g., C-1 or C-2), that would defeat
the purpose of the S-DW zoning because the are within that zone would no longer be available for
ZVR 20-1 (Conte) Additional Application Material #3 Page 8 January 6, 2010
residential use (or mixed-use, e.g., office and residential'). Thus, property owners could exploit a tactic
of buying S-DW zone lots adjacent to C-1 or C-2 lots and combining the lots into essentially a C-1 or C-2
development site. Such an action cannot be approved by the City because it would render the S-DW
zone without effect in those case, contrary to the requirements of ORS 174.010. Further, such a tactic
would reduce the available land supply for housing in direct conflict with the applicable comprehensive
plan designations and policies.
Arguably, because a use located anywhere on a "site"/"development site" is a "use" of the "site," that
use must comply with all applicable regulations that apply to the site. Consequently, to allow a change
of use or any other from of "development" on the subject site that is not permitted on all portions of
the subject site would require (re)partitioning the site to eliminate the conflict. In this case, lot 100
would have to be divided into an S-DW lot on the west and a lot on the east with a conforming zoning,
i.e., R-2 or C-1.
S mit d o January 6, 20 0 by:
Paul T. Conte
1461 W. 10th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97402
Note that the S-DW zone allows offices only with a Conditional Use Permit or no larger than 10,000 square feet
with at least 65 percent of the total building square footage in residential use. EC 9.3211(2).
ZVR 20-1 (Conte) Additional Application Material #3 Page 9 January 6, 2010
roved for Rscorift
r City of Q -
Q®tat +Qk
kpft -Cfty 'ecoroar LA 06-10
NOTICE OF APPROVAL FOR A PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT
The City of Eugene, an Oregon municipal corporation, has granted approval of a property line
adjustment between property owned by Spider, LLC and 432, LLC. Said adjustment for
Spider, LLC and 432, LLC (LA 06-10), involves Tag Lots 100, 600, and 800 of Assessor's
Map 17-03-31-31 as shown on attached approved map (see Exhibit A) and as described on the
attached updated legal descriptions (see Exhibit B). The approved property line adjustment to
which reference is hereby made is on file at the City of Eugene Planning Division.
Be it hereafter known and agreed that. property described as Exhibit B must be sold as
shown on the approved map on file at the City of Eugene Planning Division. This document
constitutes City approval of a property line adjustment. The property lines do not change
until new deeds are recorded with Lane County. Tag records will not be updated until the
Lane County Department of Assessment and Taxation is contacted by the applicant.
IN WITNESS WHEREFORE, the party hereto has set her hand and seal this ~ day of
March, 2006.
Ali ansen, S nior Planner Planner
STATE OF OREGON
COUNTY OF LANE
On this Mlftday of March, 2006, before me appeared Alissa Hansen, Senior Planner, to me
personally known, who being sworn and duly authorized to. act on behalf of the Planning Director,
acknowledged that this instrument is the free act and deed of the City of Eugene.
Seal:
OFFICIAL SEAL
MICHELLE KIMBLE
NOTARY K)SUC-0REGON
COMMISSION NO. 396252
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 27, 2009
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have here
unto set my hand and seal the day and year
last above written.
Notq6 Public,"'
My Commission Expires: 1122 Zc22
Division of Chief Deputy Clerk 2006021579
Lane County Deeds and Records D
$36.00
00793364200600215790030036
03/30/2006 10:06:17 AM
RPRAT Cnto1 Stn=1 CASHIER OS
$15.00 $10.00 $11.00
NOTE: After recording, please return to the City Recorder's Office, 777 Pearl Street, Room 105, Eugene, OR 97401.
EXffiBTf A
Property Line Change -
9
z_
F
M
ra
Q
r
N
dJ
Y
m W. i alp
.,s < Z z c
LAJ
ad
n
0
A17-~ At J 0 z N
ti88is 80N88r11 zw ~p M
000 W go Z
r`
y V) >>D
2 La N o
~z z w
aQ V
J a
~ r1 Xw
91i
W D
st
b - - - y - - - _ f `
W ?a t 11
a MAR 2 1 2006 k
rt
~ ► a Pl~orunp Uivts~un _
yak VNI
<S y
rs --MR=
Y 4~f 1
lam m vdx
AIl-A-11=.M
ssssss Kossxtss~r
PHOw ED
N JU6 - 3~L~
ls>3are~ 4
Li
Scale . i"= SO'
File number LA CXc D
e
EXHIBIT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TAX LOT 800
A portion of Block 8 of the Plat of Elias Stewart Addition as platted and recorded in Book 2, Page 29 of
the Lane County Oregon Plat Records, Lane County, Oregon; which is further described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest Corner of Lot 5 of said Block 8 thence, along the south line of Lots 5 and 4 in
said Block, North 89°59'00" East a distance of 73.64 feet; thence, leaving said south line North 0°00' 15"
West a distance of 66.00 feet; thence South 89°59'00" West a distance of 73.64 feet to the right-of-way of
Washington Street; thence, along said right-of-way, South 0°00' 15" East a distance of 66.00 feet to the
Point of Beginning.
Containing 4,860 square feet, more or less, lying in the City of Eugene, Oregon subject to all easements
and rights-of-way of record.
P:1721805%LEGAL DESCRIPTION TL 800.doc
REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL
LAND SURVE-YOR
Cck~ 6bQ'-
OREGON
JULY 90. 1876
CLELL GOODWIN
1078
,Eic n ~ /30 ~o~
LEGAL DESCRIMON
TAX LOTS 100 AND 600 COMBINED
A portion of Block 8 of the Plat of Elias Stewart Addition as platted and recorded in Book 2, Page 29 of
the Lane County Oregon Plat Records, Lane County, Oregon; which is further described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast Corner of Lot 1 of said Block 8 thence, along the south line of Lots 1, 2 and 3
in said Block, South 89°59'00" West a distance of 200.46 feet; thence, leaving said south lime North
0000' 15" West a distance of 66.00 feet; thence South 89059'00" West a distance of 85.14 feet; thence
North 0900'15" West a distance of 87.00 feet to the right-of-way of West I Vh Avenue; thence, along said
right-of-way, North 89°59'00" East a distance•of 285.60 feet to the right-of-way of Lawrence Street;
thence, along the right-of-way of Lawrence Street, South 000015" East a distance of 153.00 feet to the
Point of Beginning.
Containing 0.874 acres, more or less,.lying.in the City of Eugene, Oregon subject to all easements and
rights-of-way of record.
Planning & Development
Planning
City of Eugene
99 West 1e Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5377
(541) 682-5572 FAX
www.eugene-or.gov
March 29, 2006
Spider, LLC
1137 Washington Street
Eugene, OR 97401
PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL FOR
SPIDER, LLC (LA 06-10)
Your property line adjustment was deemed complete on March 27, 2006 and granted approval by the
Eugene Planning Director on March 28, 2006. The lots will be recognized by the City as they appear
on the approved property line change map. A copy of the decision and approved property line change
map is enclosed for your records.
For your information, the City will record a Notice of Property Line Adjustment mith the Lane County
Deeds and Records office. After this notice is recorded, it is the applicant's responsibility to record
new deeds with Lane County as the Notice does not change the deeds, but simply. provides a recorded
notification of the City's approval of the property line adjustment. The property lines do not officially
change until new deeds are recorded with Lane County, and tax records will not be updated until the
Lane County Department of Assessment and Taxation is contacted by the applicant(s). Consulting a
surveyor for these last steps is recommended.
If you have questions regarding the approval of this property line adjustment, please contact
Michelle Kimble at (541) 682-5488.
Sincerely,
I
Amy Janisch
Permit Specialist
Enclosure
cc: Clell Goodwin, Balzhiser & Hubbard Engineers
Findings and Decision of the Eugene Planni Director 4vk
Property Line Adjustment Approval For:
Spider, LLC (LA 06-10)
Submitted: February 23, 2006 Deemed Complete: March 27, 2006 Decision: March 29, 2006
Legal Lot 1:
Legal Lot 2:
Map: 17-03-31-31 Tax Lots 600 & 800
Map: 17-03-31-31 Tax Lots 100 & 101
A ]icant: Spider, LLC Zonin : S-DW/SR
Applicant: 432, LLC Zonin : S-DW/SR & C-2/SR
Location: 1132 Lawrence, 1137 Washington, 432 West 11
Avenue & 495 West I I' Alley
Surveyor: Clell Goodwin, Balzhiser & Hubbard Engineers, 541 686-8478
Lead City Staff: Michelle Kimble, Assistant Planner, 541 682-5488
Related Permits/Applications: M 76-131, CU 69-18, CU 72-17 & SR 73-13
EVALULATION:
Based on the information provided by the applicant, the City has determined that this request complies with Eugene
Code (EC) Section 9.8405 Applicability of Property Line Adjustment Applications. As such, it is subject to review and
approval in accordance with the requirements and application criteria of EC 9.8400 through 9.8420 and with the Type I
land use application procedures beginning at EC 9.7100. The applicable approval criteria are presented below in bold
typeface with findings and conclusions following each.
EC 9.8415(1) Any buildings to be retained on the properties comply with the minimum front and interior yard
setbacks as defined in this land use code.
Complies
Findings: The buildings shown on the legal lots will continue to comply with minimum setback
YES NO
requirements along the adjusted property line.
EC 9.8415(2) The final configuration of property lines shall not reduce an existing lot below the minimum lot
standards established in this land use code or otherwise violate standards of this land use code,
building codes, and fire codes.
Complies
Findings: The proposal does not otherwise reduce lots below minimum lot standards or violate
®YES NO
any other known standards of applicable codes.
EC 9.8415(3) The final configuration of property lines shall not violate any previous requirements or conditions
of a roval imposed with a prior applicable land use decision.
Complies
Findings: The proposed final configuration of property lines will not violate any conditions or
®YES
❑ NO
requirements of the previous land use decisions concerning the land use applications listed above.
The conditions and requirements from the previous land use decisions, including those related to
tree reservation and removal, still remain in effect.
EC 9.8415(4) Public assessments, liens, and fees with respect to the partition have been paid, or:
a) A segregation of assessments and liens has been applied for and granted by the city; or
b) An adequate guarantee in a form acceptable to the city manager has been provided assuring
the liens, assessments and fees will be paid prior to recording the property line adjustment.
Complies
Findings: Referral comments from Public Works Engineering staff indicate that there are
®YES NO
presently no outstanding public liens or assessments on the subject properties.
EC 9.8415(5) Within the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone, no new lot may be created if more
than 33% of the lot, as created, would be occupied by the combined area of the /WR conservation
setback and any portion of the Goal 5 Water Resource Site that extends landward beyond the
conservation setback, making the lot immediately eligible for an adjustment under EC
9.8030(21)(a).
Complies
Findings: The subject properties do not have the /WR overlay zone; this criterion is not
®Y ES ❑ NO
applicable.
DECISION:
Based on the above findings, information submitted to date, and the criteria set forth in Eugene Code Section 9.8415,
approval of this request is hereby granted. The approved site plan is attached, see "Exhibit A".
Decision Date: 3 ZB 0 Decision By: C.t✓
Ali a ansen, Senior Planner, for the Eugene Planning Director
INFORMATION:
s The City will record with Lane County, a Notice of Approval for a Property Line Adjustment that contains the
revised legal descriptions of the existing lots affected by the adjustment.
♦ In accordance with state law, the property owners are responsible for creating and recording a deed with Lane
County Deeds and Records regarding the new location of the property line. The owners are responsible for
submitting requests to the Lane County Department of Assessment and Taxation for transfers on the assessment
roll in accordance with the approved adjustment. The property owners are responsible for payment of any public
liens, assessments and fees that may be required prior to recording the notice of approval. The property owners
are responsible for meeting the statutory requirements for survey and monumentation of the new line by an
Oregon licensed surveyor.
♦ Approval does not relieve the applicant from complying with applicable codes and statutory requirements.
EXIT A
4~N~~W Property Line Change
8
z
F
R;
/~\1
\'V
1
a
r
y
h
y
y
0
E
0
QE w ~
_ a
w CO w a o `D S m Z s.5._.r.' a`
Ws3~o~ z =
x y ; W Q ~ N
Saa~
~i
0
n
0
Nim amvd,M J 06 Z N
AYA1 V-AMM.w
,LKINIS SOM9Sr17 WZ} ~p M
8300' 1~! N 0 c p oo w
w (n
Lj U- won - rj _j N
M Z ~J M
d J U a.
W
h
b
sJ
F ~ I ~ S~ ~ t:'1 4 u i...
F I9
til E ! MAR 2 1 2006 - i
'By ----r----- I .
City Oi Eupene
~ ~ F
S00T70Y3'E .87.00' t a6QD.
h yy~~y
%ABOOOYB"M ~Oa W
t Q
AYAI p-AhOPI ,p
t85 8d8 M0A0MIHsTA sAglFridYM
z--~ 2
N APPH o ~0
2~sl0-0 Scale. ► , Sp
File number LA
I
A
:d
i.r
a
A 0 .0 O ^
oS oa
A 7 F O^
T omvo
5
5°
°
0- < 5
t
S
7~
°~!~o
C
co
c
O
0
~
o g
I;
I
3an' 9•£6
v
#
a~ ro
0
b
d ft
o
a
0
o -
° y
a
m
v
°no _a
ff
<
R
y -
. c
9oaQ
S.
NA<OC
k r
O
'
foO
rp p
a
w4?£o•
Oy P+ Eo
p0.
A
N
.
rA
m o
n 9 o° o
r
r
° E 5 9 E•
"°p
a
d eD
O
-
~ C N O
6 R,
m,
9
n
Q
•
O
't
H e
CL
a°
f° E
~
E o 0 5
~
r.
n E ~3•
G
0
.a o a
r
•
C
O
N
5'•
~
O
J
Cj'
ti 7 O ti
~9 .Ao
o o
^ H:a y
n~
B
o
a
w
=
o n n
~
oab=
.sg
0
'01 E; 0
'.0<
o00, s
o
•b A
C
Ig y O• m-
y a d c
.
0
°
n
n 0
na3
o. a' 9
K
o
o
3 S.~
s
°
Ev ~•c 7.
°
°
O
i
.
a
< E„
~a d
n a
,
~a
9 o r~ o
.02
0 0.O m
~o'O
m o f °0•
0
C ro~
0 E-0
:3
&F.P Mm
9 C» A
g E
po 9 G
y+ 9 o
H
c
f °
!n !n o
q
J Vm B7
as
e 0
•
O
S E'r
n
c
0Q 0 W
i '0 ,9C_
b
NJ~ m~
to
m
o
°
O O
C O
0 o
C
°
` O
m
O
0,9 .
g.
a
N
N
iv
b
b
b
»sa ao
p,o a m v S-=
b• o.N 3 pacoG o
m
ra°. 9• m °
•~syy p~ n
v~~ pp E
v p, O 04
ag H ~ 0
~~yy I'9 nm• 9 p p
~p y mo
A V
e~ b a A
cow
r
g ~a
o. ~0
m
7
n
~b
Ag
~.7
is
b , o
~o
O
~•b 5.
N b a~
p O
COO
o
O 7
5.~5
E
o ad Fo~~ f~D
117 0
n A ~:'d
a W
rr
r 0.
OK -PCs rA
8
I:r p rn
m p
0 y
~ Cyb
a fCg n$
'Ua
K' QQ{{~~ p [VO!J ~ ~m ~ ~ m
p p F5~~5~8 N ~~~oom mm'
E ~ J m ~ 9~ 90
00
~ m m
sp ~ n ~ g 3
a
PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS REFERRAL RESPONSE
Date: March 8, 2006
To: Michelle Kimble, Planning Division
From: Deanna Kreger, Engineering Division
Application: LA06-10 Spider LLC
Public Works has evaluated the proposed property line adjustment in accordance with
Eugene Code Chapter 9, as noted below.
9.8405 Applicability
• The adjustment does not meet the definition of reconfiguration.
• The final configuration does not create the need for a private easement.
9.8415 Criteria
• There are no outstanding city liens/assessments of record to date.
• The final configuration does not violate applicable codes, with respect to plumbing code
requirements for individual connections to each parcel.
9.8420 Post-Approval
• The owners are responsible for recording a deed with Lane County, reflecting the location of
the new property boundary.
• The respective owners are responsible for meeting survey and monumentation requirements
of ORS.
U W Planning & Development
Planning
City of Eugene
99 West 10"' Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5377
(541) 682-5572 FAX
www.eugene-or.gov
March 20, 2006
Clell Goodwin
Balzhiser & Hubbard Engineers
100 West 13'' Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
RE: SPIDER LLC (LA 06-10)
Thank you for the property line adjustment application that was received by the City of Eugene on February 23,
2006. The Planning Division assigned file number LA 06-10 to the application and I will serve as the main
City staff contact and reviewer of the application.
The first step in the application process is the "Completeness Review Step". For further information about this
step, refer to the document enclosed titled, "Land Use Application - Completeness Review Step". Regarding
your application, City staff reviewed the application and determined that it is incomplete for the following
reason:
• Sufficient evidence has not been submitted to determine that Tax Lot 100 is a stand alone legal lot.
From the information available, it appears that Tax Lot 100 and 101 together comprise one legal lot
(Reference: City File M 76-131, map attached). Please provide evidence that Tax Lots 100 and 101
were legally divided or update the Property Line Adjustment Map to show that they are together one
legal lot.
Enclosed is a document titled, "Incomplete Land Use Application - Time Line Extension Form." To help ensure
City staff know how to proceed with your application. Please sign and return the time line extension form. If
you have any questions, please contact me by March 31$` at (541) 682-5488 or via e-mail at:
michelle.j.kimble@ci.eugene.or.us. I am leaving the City of Eugene for a job in the Portland area; after my last
day, March 31 Kent Kullby will be the planner in charge of this application. He can be reached at 682-5453 or
kent.r.kullby@ci.eugene.or.us.
Sincerely,
ichelle Kimble
Assistant Planner
Enclosures
cc: Spider, LLC & 432, LLC
m ~ m
E o
0
as ma M m N b.- -
a
CC --ads Nv~ q a 'sy
da C.) aWE m w=~
EA 5 c
cd 8 w b
y a
vNi {s. A~
m Q
a~ E.N
0. q
~ vs oaAH441-°
~Q
p9RA
°
i
v a j o
Ea
d FWD ado
O aUi c~ pp
a~ Qo B2!
c
E
CL
m n°
m O C 2 QP
mQ WMAdt
~rn °mpOOM~m
C C W« ~ N j
C C O C m~ m
W 9 23 m~
as cimW'
C
O
C
°
O
y
~ C
y
E
o~
•
O
y
a
O
a
r
ado
Y
9
.i yp
00 Al
•
A
ra W
.
Q u
a
q
a
°Oa
Fy
w
b
a
O O a
R v
E
,o
a b
o
10 'b .d- N
a u
U Q o 0
s L
to w
:gyp ; 5
3 a
.s a
O
a"' u
L~Q. N
0pp
yU
a~
O y
O C
F o
a~
og~
5
s 'a s
o
Q.0
~ o ;9 •p ~
a.~
'0 ab.,
cr '00
ul j..
0
dA 3 a
o~ o. a
4. q Ua
a g a cd
..v v d O ~ m
3 a 5'd c
6
o
$
•F
~o u
e
a
~
m H Vv... Ol
m u
J3 P.
a OR m e sa 5 0 wO cLi
r >m
ommV o0>ocT
O
m
_m~$m
c~5°o
c=
U = 3
c
$avvo
o
a
i
a
m m v? o :d O 3$ M
10
m m a
v A~mE ~0-i
1, 0
; 3t ;l,
m a d
m>
Z
O
r
.
c
o c aim a'w °
o•~
>
~
mc m E m m d~
8mw
a,
:-2 = 5y ~.y
,
o °
n
0oo 03'. coo
522
c~
a
E -omU
'y
C1 E> V w a 0~ p C A
y
S
O '
•
U 3 0~ L
5 "
. c
6 W w~ O
O O
y 9 A
E m o$' E °msa
C. T
p?
m Am
K ~ E 3, m E S
0
1
m
5 4 5
°
.
j
.p
OR .C C
~m•'~ ~
= 'O
u
1,01
0
012 9
v
T w C
U
C •p O E
E E 3 c
m N o
L O
b
Z
g
n
.
q m y d 7 z:
a •
b
m 0
O •
y
'
•
0' 0
E
2! 0
~ -ON
c k E E y N 3 o N U
5 y e
`
E E t
a~°i y y° 0
.
°h°a T9 °
a.Saaa~
c
Eoo
~
3
~0=
a~
O a
a
i
iE
a
a~i e» m 0 5 o a aEi o
E E
M
u v
$
>
a
i
S
U ❑ ❑
❑
d
N
d
OL.
a
Q
qa
U
a
Q
W
0
u
8
z
~e
0
a`
I
l~ r
r..
ED 2 3 i
m 'A
M '76 131 ..•,%i
APprewd as 9 .eln9r lunhipn by 3h9 . / / t:'~ % I
NO pw-11"
e~ DEC 2 21976 PRI 0176
g` G,4 G✓rFz Aln5
A oc~sed 1 ~P~. C-.
Le-'~~k Pr~on~ r
.91 4t 4e wlw~r O.OV.Vlh
u. ~ r~n~o~nd~r a~ of S
rt.~eci. B tr/ios S~,dorf
~?ook P-P• f. P9~
Su®dv.tCeR
° _
Ens~itice~e 3a4
R
;
St/RVEYOR . .
MI,VO,AR 5l1,BD1{11S1CW
r /7$
a~
REGISTERED
R.on>~c
D SURVEYOR
BySrr~i~n I`or1!
DA-Ml
5a.4e c.• /1'r
t
i~
MUG? 82. 3979
PAULA LEE NORNESS
uor.
M '76 131 ;
r +ww p r~}' :4
Planning & Development
Planning
PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION
City of Eugene
99 West Ie Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5377
(541) 682-5572 Fax
www.eugene-or.gov
Please complete the following application checklist. Note that additional information may be required upon further
review in order to adequately address the applicable criteria for approval. If you have any questions about filling
out this application, please contact Planning staff at the Permit and Information Center, phone (541)682-5377, 99
West 10`h Avenue, Eugene.
List all Assessor's Map and Tax Lot numbers of the property included in the request.
Assessor's Ma
~ Tax Lot
zoning
Existin `Use"
17033131
100
C-2/SR $
Commercial
17033131
600
S/SR
Vacant
17033131
800
S/SR
Residential
Pending Building permit application?:
❑ Yes, application Number:
.5:1- [)0j* 0W ►J blest s tai
® No
Purpose of proposed property line change: More desirable configuration for both properties.
Commercial or Industrial Building(s) located on site?
® Yes - Submit an additional written statement and set of site plans at the time of initial submittal.
❑ No
Filing Fee
® A filing fee must accompany all applications. The fee varies depending upon the type of application and is
adjusted periodically by the City Manager. Check with Planning staff at the Permit and Information Center to
determine the required fee or check website at www.eugeneplanning.org
Written Statement (Submit 2 copies)
® Submit a detailed written statement describing how this request is consistent with all applicable criteria (Section
9.8415 of the Eugene Code)
® Submit documentation that the proposal complies with Section 9.8405 of the Eugene Code, which includes the
following requirements;
® For lot line removals, the property line was not platted in a partition or subdivision.
® The adjustment will not result in an increase in the number of parcels or lots.
® The proposal will not create more than 2 adjustments to any of the affected lots or parcels within a
calendar year.
® The adjustment will result in less than a 200% change in the size of a lot or parcel.
® The adjustment will not result in a reconfiguration as defined in the Eugene Code.
® The adjustment will not create a flag lot
Property Line Adjustment Date Last Revised: 12/2003 Pagel of 3
Application Form
Site Plan Requirements
Submit 3 copies of a site plan, drawn to an engineer's scale on 8 %"x 14" sheet of paper). Site plans shall
include the following information:
® Show the date, north arrow, and standard engineer's scale on site plan
® Show the Assessor's Map and Tax Lot numbers on the site plan.
® Show a vicinity map on the site plan (vicinity map does not need to be to scale).
® Site Plan has been stamped by a Oregon licensed Land Surveyor (unless request involves a parallel
adjustment).
® Show existing dimensions and square footage of the parcels involved.
® Show the proposed dimensions and square footage of the parcels involved.
® Clearly label the existing property line proposed for removal or adjustment. Clearly show the proposed
adjusted property line.
® Show all adjacent streets, alleys, and accessways, including right-of-way and paving widths.
® Show all dimensions of existing public utility easements and any other areas restricting use of the parcels,
such as conservation areas, slope easements, access easements, etc.
® Show the location, setbacks and height of all existing structures, including those under pending building
permits.
General Requirements (Submit 2 copies)
® Submit a current preliminary title report for each parcel.
® Submit legal descriptions for each proposed parcel (resulting parcel configurations). This legal description
must be typed on an 8'/z" x 11" white sheet of paper (no letterhead) so that it is suitable for recording.
® In accordance with 9.8400, submit documentation proving that the property included in the proposed property
line adjustment is/are legal lot(s). See the definition of a legal lot in E.C. 9.0500.
® If any parcel or lot contains structures other than single-family residences, submit additional information
demonstrating that the adjusted line will not conflict with applicable Uniform Building Code requirements.
Note: This is not a complete list of requirements. Additional information may be required after further
review in order to adequately address the applicable approval criteria.
Property Line Adjustment Date Last Revised: 12/2003 Page 2 of 3
Application Form
By signing, the undersigned certifies that he/she has read and understood the submittal requirements
outlined, and that he/she understands that omission of any listed item may cause delay in processing the
application. I (We), the undersigned, acknowledge that the information supplied in this application is
complete and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge.
PROPERTY OWNER OF TAX LOT: 600 & 800
Name (print): Spider, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company Phone: q 1 31 - S 1 S Z
Address: 1137 Washington Street
City/State/Zip: Eugene, OR 97401 E-mail (if applicable): eQ
`J
lo"
PROPERTY OWNER OF TAX LOT: 100
Name (print): 432 LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company Phone:
Address: 432 West I Vh Avenue
City/State/Zip: Eugene, OR 97401 E-mail (if applicable):
Signature: ~c m ~g~KG m rn~
SURVEYOR (REQUIRED UNLESS ADJUSTMENT PARALLEL)/DESIGNATED CONTACT PERSON:
Name (print): Clell Goodwin
Company/Organization: Balzhiser & Hubbard Engineers
Address: 100 W. 13`s Avenue
City/State/Zip: Eugene, OR 97401 E-mail (if applicable): cgoodwin@bhengineers.com
Phone: 541-686-8478 Fax: 541-345-5303
Signature: C~
DESIGNATED CONTACT PERSON
Name (print): Clell Goodwin
Company/Organization: Balzhiser & Hubbard Engineers
Address: 100 W. 13'' Avenue
City/State/Zip: Eugene, OR 97401 E-mail (if applicable): cgoodwin@bhengineers.com
Phone: Fax:
Signature: C ~
Property Line Adjustment Date Last Revised: 12/2003 Page 3 of 3
Application Form
WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR WEBB PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT
COMPLIANCE WITH EUGENE CODE, SECTION 9.8415
9.8415 Property Line Adiustment Approval Criteria. The planning director shall approve, approve
with conditions or deny the property line adjustment application. Approval or approval with
conditions shall be based on compliance with the following criteria:
(1) Any buildings to be retained on the properties comply with the minimum front and interior
yard setbacks as defined in this land use code.
Rsp. The minimum front and side yard setbacks in the Downtown Westside Special Area Zone
are 10 feet and 0-10 feet respectively and the building setbacks on the resulting tax lot 800 exceed
these minimums. Minimum setbacks in a C-2 zone are 0.
(2) The final configuration of property lines shall not reduce an existing lot below the minimum
lot standards established in this land use code or otherwise violate standards of this land use
code, building codes and fire codes.
Rsp. Lot standards within the Downtown Westside Special Area Zone require a minimum size of
4,500 square feet and a minimum frontage of 20 feet. The resulting tax lot 800 will exceed the
minimums required.
(3) The final configuration of property lines shall not violate any previous requirements or
conditions of approval imposed with a prior applicable land use decision.
Rsp. There are no restrictions imposed by prior land use decisions which affect this property line
adjustment application.
(4) Public assessments, liens and fees with respect to the property line adjustment have been paid
or:
(a) A segregation of assessments and liens has been applied for and granted by the city;
or
(b) An adequate guarantee in a form acceptable to the city manager has been provided
assuring the liens, assessments and fees will be paid prior to recording the property
line adjustment.
Rsp. Application will be made, to the Lane County Assessor's Office for an itemization of any
unpaid taxes or liens and payment or an guarantee, satisfactory to the city manager, will be made
prior to final approval of the property line adjustment.
WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR WEBB PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT
COMPLIANCE WTTH EUGENE CODE, SECTION 9.8405
9.8405 Applicability of Property Line Adjustment Applications.
(1) A property line adjustment application is applicable to changes to the property lines of
adjoining properties when all of the following exist:
(a) A property line proposed for removal is not platted in a partition or subdivision plat.
Rsp. This application is for the adjustment of the common boundary between adjoining
properties. No removal of property lines between adjacent properties is requested.
(b) A property line proposed for adjustment will not result in an increase in the number
of parcels or lots.
Rsp. This adjustment of a common boundary will not result in an increase in the number
of parcels or lots.
(c) A property line proposed for adjustment will not create more than 2 property line
adjustments to any of the boundaries of an individual lot or parcel within a calendar
year. This subsection does not apply to proposed property line adjustments
undertaken by or on behalf of a governmental entity that affect the ability to preserve,
manage or expand park, open space or natural resource areas.
Rsp. Approval of this property line adjustment will not create the third property line
adjustment to the boundaries of either of the properties involved within the current
calendar year.
(d) The adjustment will result in less than a 200% change in the size of the lot or parcel.
This subsection does not apply to proposed property line adjustments undertaken by
or on behalf of a governmental entity that affect the ability to preserve, manage or
expand park, open space or natural resource areas.
Rsp. This adjustment will result in a 31 % decrease in the size of combined tax lots 600
and 800 and will result in an increase of 6% in the size of tax lot 100.
(2) A property line adjustment application may not be utilized to affect the reconfiguration of lots
or parcels which must be approved through the partition or subdivision procedure.
Rsp. This application is to adjust the non-platted common line between adjacent properties. No
property lines platted in a subdivision or partition are being vacated nor are boundary lines of a
platted subdivision or partition being adjusted. No reconfiguration of lots or parcels created
through the subdivision or partition process is requested.
(3) The property line adjustment application may not be utilized to create flag lots.
Rsp. No flag lots will be created by the approval of this property line adjustment. All resulting
properties will have frontage on a public street consistent with the requirements of the Eugene
Code.
I
F E B 2 3 2006
r
Address UBC Requirements
Not Applicable: No building setbacks to a property line are being reduced by the approval of this
property line adjustment.
i
F E 8 2 3 2006
EXI I T A
Property Line Change
0
Q~
YI-1 3 z2
i Q 3 h
h OC m yj ~ N
W
`n
2~~ oo m W Q ~Rr~ - N
~ W -sc
vi ~ ~l O
O
111411 4NYd ,K
AM A-V W A9
ZssSZS NONSNYY7
Is
.O
7
z
F
M
D
00
P
ail
N
f
MI
t
f~
a;
r
° s °-mar lasar
o
~
H
+
~
Y
~
1
7~9 F
x~
!
~Y
S
'vim
~
D+
1
00.00' N009d1
N
W Ig
~o ~
2
i~
1
~
ii 2
•
t
1
I~
_
5001DD I5'E_ B7.OD' _
\
y~q
N
I WON 4NYd ,*C
AYN -J&-LpW AS
5' ZSSNZS M0zaMIItsv
'15
N
-.9t. /
~2
ZZ'4 5 _ 'sa s'
y.~... fl
60 m
w,
c2$
n
O
J
O
Z
:
N
oZ
O
'p
n_
z
_
of
V1
0oo00
M
LJ~p
z
1/1
LLI
~ LL
LLJ
O>-
~00
CL Z
~
CL J
d
W
FEB 2 3
L
1S 3Jf9lN1
Q
S ►p1pJaSVM a
E
Z- C
Scale -I" 50'
File number LA
~ t
•
Subdivision Guarantee
4 - E 2 3 KOS
first .American
SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE
F E B 3 2 2006
For the Proposed Plat of:
Unnamed Plat
Guarantee No.: 7199-731674
Page 1 of 5
MistAmedcan Tithe Insurance Company ofOnyon
600 country Club Road
Eugene, OR 97401
Phn -(541)484-2900
Fax -(541)484-7321
GUARANTEE NO.:
FEE $ 175.00
YOUR REF.:
First American Tide Insurance Company of Oregon
reports to
7199-731674
The Oregon Real Estate Commission, and any County or City within which said subdivision or proposed
subdivision is located.
That, according to the public records which impart constructive notice or matters affecting titre to the
premises hereinafter referred to, we find:
That the last deed of record runs to:
432, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company, as to Parcel I and Spider LLC, an Oregon
Limited Liability Company, as to Parcels II and III
We also find the following apparent encumbrances, which includes "Blanket Encumbrances" as defined by
ORS 92.305 (1), and also easements, restrictive covenants and rights of way prior to the effective date
hereof:
1. The rights of the public in and to that portion of the premises herein described lying within the
limits of streets, roads and highways.
2. Reservation of access to West 11th Avenue, as set forth in Conveyance Street Dedication,
including the terms and provisions thereof, from John B. McNutt to the City of Eugene, recorded
May 04, 1977, Reception No. 77-26408, Offidal Records of Lane County, Oregon.
3. Deed of Trust and the terms and conditions thereof.
Grantor/Trustor: 432, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company
Grantee/Beneficiary: Centennial Bank
Trustee: Steven L Philpott, Attorney at Law
Amount: $1,880,000.00
Recorded: November 30, 2001
Recording Information: 2001-080335, Offidal Records of Lane County, Oregon
(Parcel I)
FLstAmeniwn TA*
Subdivision Guarantee
Guarantee No.: 7199-731674
Page 2 of 5
4. Assignment of leases and/or rents and the terms and conditions thereof.
Assignee: Centennial Bank
Recorded: November 30, 2001
Recording Information: 2001-080336, Official Records of Lane County, Oregon
(Parcel 1)
5. Lease and the to
Lessor:
Lessee:
As disclosed by:
Recorded:
Recording No.:
(Parcel I)
!rms and conditions thereof:
432, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company
Jones & Roth, P.C.
Unrecorded Lease
November 30, 2001
2001-080336, Official Records of Lane County, Oregon
Said Lease was purportedly subordinated and rendered inferior and subsequent to the Trust
Deed set forth as Exception No. 3 above, by agreement:
Dated: November 27, 2001
Recording Information: November 30, 2001, Reception No. 2001-080337, Official
Records of Lane County, Oregon
6. Subordination, Attornment and Non-Disturbance Agreement and the terms and conditions
thereof:
Between: 432, LLC, and Jones & Roth, P.C.
And: Centennial Bank
Recording Information: November 30, 2001, Reception No. 2001-080337, Official
Records of Lane County, Oregon
(Parcel I)
7. Financing Statement, indicating a Security Agreement
Debtor: Jones & Roth, P.C.
Secured Party: Centennial Bank
Recorded: March 05, 2002
Recording Information: 2002-017553, Official Records of Lane County, Oregon
(Parcel I)
8. Deed of Trust and the terms and conditions thereof.
Grantor/Trustor: William B. Webb
Grantee/Benefidary: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., "MERS" solely as
a nominee for Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. a California
Corporation
Trustee: Western Title & Escrow
Amount: $130,000.00
Recorded: January 24, 2005
Recording Information: 2005-005575
(Parcels II and III)
RrstAmeniran Me
Subdivision Guarantee
NOTE: Taxes for the year 2005-2006 PAID IN FULL
Tax Amount:
$34,116.95
Map No.:
1703313100100
Property ID:
0269256
Tax Code No.:
00400
(A portion of Parcel I)
NOTE: Taxes for the year 2005-2006 PAID IN FULL
Tax Amount:
$552.11
Map No.:
1703313100101
Property ID:
1195005
Tax Code No.:
00400
(A portion of Parcel I)
NOTE: Taxes for the year 2005-2006 PAID IN FULL
Tax Amount:
$257.81
Map No.:
1703313100600
Property ID:
0269314
Tax Code No.:
00400
(Parcel II)
NOTE: Taxes for the year 2005-2006 PAID IN FULL
Tax Amount:
2,296.70
Map No.:
1703313100800
Property ID:
0269330
Tax Code No.:
00400
(Parcel III)
Guarantee No.: 7199-731674
Page 3 of 5
We have also searched our General Index for Judgments and State and Federal liens against the Grantee
named above and find:
-NONE-
The premises are in Lane County and are described as follows:
The land referred to in this report is described in Exhibit A attached hereto.
THIS IS NOT A TITLE GUARANTEE since no examination has been made of the title to the above
described property. Our search for apparent encumbrances was limited to our Tract Indices and
therefore above listings do not include additional matters which might have been disclosed by an
examination of the record title. We assume no liability in connection with this Subdivision Report and will
not be responsible for errors or omissions therein.
Dated: November 17, 2005
RistAmerlcan Me
SubdiAsfon Guarantee
First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon,
By:
Ronald Denton, Authorized Signatory
W/PM
Guarantee No.: 7199-731674
Page 4 of 5
First American Title
Subdivision Guarantee
Exhibit "A"
Guarantee No.: 7199-731674
Page 5 of 5
Real property in the County of Lane, State of Oregon, described as follows:
PARCEL I:
Lots 1, 2, 3 and the East 60 feet of Lot 4, Block 8, Plat of ELIAS STEWART ADDITION, as platted and
recorded in Book 2, Page 29, Lane County Oregon Plat Records, in Lane County, Oregon. EXCEPTING
THEREFROM the North 7 feet thereof.
PARCEL II:
Beginning at a point 94 feet South of the Northwest comer of Lot 5, Block 8 of ELIAS STEWARTS
ADDITION to Eugene, Oregon, as the same is platted and recorded; run thence East parallel with the
North line of said Lot 5 and Lot 4 of said Block 8, 133 1/3 to the East line of said Lot 4 in Block 8; thence
South on the said East line of said Lot 4, 66 feet to the Southeast comer of said Lot 4; thence West
parallel with the North line of said Lots 4 and 5 to the Southeast comer of said Lot 5; run thence North
66 feet to the place of beginning, being South 66 feet of Lots 4 and 5 in Block 8 in ELIAS STEWARTS
ADDITION to Eugene, Lane County, Oregon.
EXCEPT the East 60 feet of Lot 4, Block 8, ELIAS STEWARTS ADDITION, as platted and recorded in
Volume 2, Page 29, Lane County Oregon Plat Records, in the County of Lane, State of Oregon.
PARCEL III:
Beginning at a point 48 1/2 feet East of the Northwest comer of Lot 5 in Block 8 of ELIAS STEWARTS
ADDITION to Eugene, in Lane County, Oregon, as platted and recorded in Volume 2, Page 29, Lane
County Oregon Plat Records; thence East along the North line of Lot 5 and of Lot 4 in said Block 8, 45.1
feet, thence South parallel with the West line of said Lot 4, 94 feet; thence West parallel with the North
line of said Lots 4 and 5 in Block 8, 45.1 feet; and thence North 94 feet to the place of beginning, being a
part of Lots 4 and 5 in Block 8 in said ELIAS STEWARTS ADDITION to Eugene, in Lane County, Oregon.
EXCEPT that portion conveyed to John A. Elorriaga by Deed recorded May 04, 1977, Reception No. 77-
26358, Official Records of Lane County, Oregon.
ALSO EXCEPT that portion conveyed to the City of Eugene by Deed recorded May 04, 1977, Reception
No. 77-26408, Official Records of Lane County, Oregon.
Tax Parcel Number: 0269256, 1195005, 0269314 and 0269330
HrstAmenrkm We
6G.
w
0
0
6
1000 • 1200
6
1100
cn ~ r% 1 7
r• 1 Ij
.
~Z'50
5 cJ Ys 1 • Io' I 40 0
31 " ea
8'
700 0 -400 31 308- ~ 100
1
Q p » ~0
T 3.6' 60' 1
r
4
101 200
4 800 ,
1,3
a
5 4a, 4 y
WEST
8
1300
dl4.s'
6G.69
~sr• G~.B• 10
11600 4
9!
1800
400 $
1351'
10
goo, 2000
IF,
9 41s3.4 10
76.93,
6900 7 00 740 7500 7700 ~ , 77
01
5 o
.7000 1 I g .74
q 7800
5 4 , 3
4 3
THIS MAP IS PROVIDED AS A COURTESY OF WESTERN PIONEER TITLE COMPANY
THIS COPY OF ASSESSOR'S MAP IS PROVIDED SOLELY TO ASSIST IN LOCATING SUBJECT PROPERTY. NO LIABILITY IS
ASSUMED FOR DISCREPANCIES IN THIS MAP AS OUTLINED AND THE ACCOMPANYING LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
MAP # 17 03 31 31
DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT
CITY OF EUGENE
BUILDING & PERMIT SERVICE
99 WEST 10TH AVE 682-5086
REG-RECEIPT:3-0001445 Feb 23 2006
CASHIER:
Property Line Adjustment $624.00
Webb, William
Admin Fee-Auto Calc $49.92
TOTAL DUE: $673.92
RECEIVED FROM:
SPIDER LLC
Check: $613.92
Total tendered: $673.92
Change due: $.00
DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT
Receipt
Planning & Development
les Planning Division I
99 West 10th AvenL
1W Eugene, OR 97401
(541) 682-5377
Date:
Method of Payment:
❑ Cash
❑ Check
❑ Visa/MC
Amount Received
Is ~ 3, 9-?-
Received From ?lv
7 vuG~1~ 1 n~~h <fi
Address
Phone ( )
App. Name W d1 ~ 066
Enter amount:
Annexation, Pre Boundary
I
I
(Subdivision, Final
i
(
Commission
s
Appeal
Traffic Impact Analysis
Condominiums
V
Conditional Use Permit
Willamette Greenway
$
Permit
$
Hazardous Materials
Zone Change
Review
$
$
Partition, Tentative
7-
F
]
IFire Review Fee
$
$
Partition, Final
Admistrative Fee
Property Line Adjustment
WKI
Land Use Applications
all others
$
PUD, Tentative Plan Other South Hills / Mult.
$ Pages / Special Fees $
Site Review Other
Subdivision, Tentative Plan
J $ TOTAL. $
Staff Initials
Post-Monumen ation Payments must be made at 858 Pearl Street. Updated: aios
r
ro~i1Jg;~!1~ c
File Edit Options Tables Reports Window Help
11DIMAIMS 1 3==641 ► 4 10 lfl
File Number LA 06 10 Planner Kimble, Michelle
Application Name Spider LLC
General I Map Tax Lots I Names I Referrals I Events I Fees I Misc I
Help
Application Name Spider LLC Planner Kimble, Michelle `J
Site Location 1132 Lawrence, 1137 Washington, 432 W. 11th Ave, 495W. 11th Alley
Initial Request Property line adjustment
Comment
Extension granted F Number of Days Extended 0 120 day rule waived Microfiched r
Category Adjustment Type I
Concurrent Adjustment Review
Entry Date 2124/06
1)4c--
» I Mixer._ 10 Micr.,. P ® E
• ® ~ ® DD Mee... 4 Micro... ~ 4 RLID Ap...
M I N U T E S
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
September 26, 1977
Adjourned meeting from September 21, 1977, of the City Council of the City
of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at
7:30 p.m. on September 26, 1977, in the Council Chamber with the following
Council members present: Eric Haws, D. W. Hamel, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley,
Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith.
I-A-1 I. Public Hearings
A. Rezoning properties located between 7th and 13th Avenues, extending
from Washington Street to Lincoln.Street, from C-2 and R-3 to MU
Mixed Use (Eugene Planning Commission)(Z 76-38).
Recommended by Planning Commission August 15, 1977, with a 5-1 vote.
Manager said this was a major complex rezoning matter considered by
the Planning Commission for nearly a year, with lengthy public hear-
ings held.
Susan Franklin, 669 West Broadway, reviewed for Council the Plan-
ning Commission's actions. Public hearings for this zone change
began in October in 1976, with numerous and comprehensive studies
showing the need for both commercial and residential zoning to
complement each other. She noted extensive public hearings had
been held, with the Planning Commission compromising with a mixed-use
zone for the area. She said this zoning would eliminate the possi-
bility of non-conformance and felt this zone change would not adver-
sely affect the property owners in the area.
Jim Saul, Planner, recognized this as a major rezoning and noted
for Council consideration the following points. First, Council should
consider whether the area should be rezoned under the accepted City
policy. He referred Council to Staff Notes, noting that the City has
adopted a number of policies which have direct relation to this zone
change. The change would be from C-2 to a MU classification that
would encourage high-density housing in the area, and he sited
various policies to support this position, noting the 1990 Plan,
Community Goals and Policies, and the Housing Policy Resolution.
He said during the entire course of public hearing, testimony pre-
sented recognized the validity of City policy encouraging high-
density housing in this area.
The second issue he noted was whether or not the Mixed-Use District
provided adequate mechanisms to carry out those policies. The primary
purpose of the MU District would be to encourage further high-density
development in the area and does recognize the existing commercial
0
9/26/77--1
_7zit
development that has been there. The third issue centered around
the question of public need, whether or not to retain the existing
commercial zoning. He said there is not a need to so retain, saying
there is an excess of commercially zoned property in this area.
Studies indicate a strong public need for rezoning to encourage
high-density housing.
In calling for ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest, Mr. Bradley
noted that at one time he owned property in the area and so had always
abstained from discussion and voting. Although he no longer owns the
property, he said he would continue to abstain from discussion and
voting on this issue. No other Councilors expressed conflicts of
interest.
Staff Notes and minutes of August 15, 1977, were received as part of
the record.
Public hearing was opened.
Vernon D. Gleaves, 975 Oak, an attorney representing property owners
Turnbull, Pietka, and Ellis, supported the zone change as recommended
by the Planning Commission, but said he would be opposed if Council
deviated from that recommendation. He noted the recommendation
was a compromise, with only one Planning Commissioner voting against--
Dr. McKinnon, who was not opposed to the zone change but opposed
because the change did not go far enough in regard to existing commer-
cial property. He urged Council to adopt the Planning Commission's
recommendations and requested the opportunity to respond further
if City Council should change the ordinance.
Jon Stafford, 1060 Madison, representing the Neighborhood Advisory
Group of the Westside NIP, said the City will have invested in excess
of one-million dollars over a three-year period to revitalize and
enhance the area bounded by 7th and 13th Avenues and Charnelton to
Chambers Street. He felt this program was consistent with the City
of Eugene's Community Goals and Policies and represents the City's
commitment to eliminate blight, deterioration, and harmful public
policies in order to concern and stabilize the older central residen-
tial neighborhoods. The neighborhood advisory group (NAG) has worked
to set the tone for the allocation of these funds and desires to
insure that future action in developments are consistent with the
intent of these projects. To this end NAG favors the concept of the
Mixed-Use District for the Downtown Westside area. He cited the
unresolved conflicts existing between zoning and the 1990 Plan and
the existing land use in the area, saying the Blayney study was made
to assess a possible and probable future for the Eugene Downtown
Westside area. One of the conclusions of this study was that if
C-2 zoning persisted, the area would very slowly convert to commercial
use. He said housing rehabilitation was a major program of the
Westside NIP, and the mixed-use zone would allow that housing reha-
bilitation programs be extended to this area. The group asked that
residential developments at R-4 density be made "conditional uses"
0
9/26/77--2
zs
rather than outright uses. This would allow proposed residential
developments to address preservation of the neighborhood character,
ample and usable open space, a variety of residential unit sizes,
attempts to use or preserve existing structures, rehousing displaced
residents, and a provision of units suitable for senior citizens and
special and low-income groups. He reiterated that the NAG favors
the concept of the Mixed-Use District and encouraged City Council
to specify R-4 density as a conditional use.
Neil Murray, 653 West Broadway, representing the Westside Neighbor-
hood Quality Project, said they endorse the mixed-use zoning as
proposed, and felt that zoning would enhance and be a fitting comple-
ment to commercial uses on the east and residential uses on the
west. However, the group had one reservation and felt using R-4 zoning
for some high-density development under conditional use would be
beneficial. The group felt the City is obligated to adopt a policy to
enhance the residential nature of the areas around the downtown. He
also said the group thought the Council's past action in calling
for residential uses of the area was a further commitment. He
urged Council to recognize this mixed-use zoning recommendation as a
compromise proposal.
Gerald A. Wilson, 670 West Broadway, said his property was adjacent
to this area, and felt the future of his property would relate to
the future of the area in the proposed rezoning. He supported the
mixed-use rezoning as it would be much more compatible than commercial
use.
Joan Gray, 1252 West 12th, expressed support for the mixed use as
recommended by the Planning Commission. She owned 2/5 of a block,
which is under consideration for rezoning from C-2 to mixed use.
She is planning to develop the property over the next two to three
years with a combination of residential and commercial use. She
expressed concern over the narrow restrictive commercial uses allowed
outright in existing structures and sanctioned for conditional use
in new construction. She said if the intent of the new rezoning is
to stimulate development of higher-density residential, then the
ordinance should provide a variety of commercial uses for the
residents in the area. She urged Council to amend Item No. 3 of the
Use Section to include commercial uses such as coffee shops, cafes,
bakeries, banks, delicatessens, variety stores, and meat markets. She
felt these uses would supply needed social centers and add to the life
in the area. She said it takes more than housing to attract people to
an area and make them want to stay, citing these additional commercial
uses would provide more amenities to the people. With the suggested
addition, she went on record as being in general support of new
commercial development which is aimed primarily at providing services
for the residents of the neighborhood.
0
9/26/77--3
Z26
Jane Degidio, 430 West Broadway, said she bought property in the area
because of the mixed commercial and residential nature. She felt the
residential character of the neighborhood would be preserved by the
mixed-use zoning. If the rezoning were approved, she asked Council to
consider extension to the area for use of CD funds for rehabilitation
of residences.
Chester Pietka, 372 West 12th, noted his support for the rezoning.
Those speaking in opposition were the following:
Jim Hershner, 260 East 11th, attorney representing Wyatt's Tire
Company, owners of Tax Lot 13000 located on the north side of 11th
in the block between Lincoln and Lawrence streets which would be
rezoned under this proposed mixed use. The property is currently
used as a warehouse for storing tires and for parking in conjunction
with the use of the main building which is located across the street
and will retain its C-2 zoning. He said his remarks related to
the property on the north side of 11th generally, and also would
apply to a small parcel located south of the alley between Lincoln
and Lawrence. The major objection to the proposed rezoning was
that this warehouse property was one of the few parcels which is
presently used for commercial purposes, yet would be zoned mixed use.
He felt this would be a down zoning and would financially damage
Wyatt's since the property would be less valuable. He felt if Wyatt's
warehouse property were rezoned MU, its present use would in effect be
a non-conforming use. Wyatt's would be unable to build any structure
or remodel the present warehouse for commercial purposes if the
mixed-use zoning were adopted for that property. He said Wyatt's
plans were to use the properties in this area as retail tire outlets
only, and this use was not permitted in the mixed-use zone.
As another example of the restrictiveness of the new rezoning, he
cited the grocery store at 11th and Lawrence which has an apartment on
the second floor. The property is owned by Ed McMillan. If his
property were rezoned for mixed use, he would be unable to expand his
grocery store operation into the second floor without.a conditional
use permit and even then, his expansion would be limited to 2,000
square feet. Therefore, he felt it is clear if commercially used
property is zoned at mixed use, the rights of the property owner would
be severely restricted. He also noted there were three other pieces
of property on the intersection of 11th and Lawrence which would
retain their C-2 zoning and felt this to be unfair and failed to see
the public need to zone one corner of a busy intersection for mixed
use while the other corners were commercially zoned. He said this was
especially true when one of the three corners is not presently in
commerical use and nevertheless retains its commercial zoning. He
asked why this non-commerical property, citing the primary example
•
9/26/77--4
1177
example of the church property on Lincoln and Charnelton, should
retain commercial zoning and Wyatt's is being used as commerical and
would no longer be able to retain its commercial zoning, but would be
down-zoned to MU. He also noted heavily trafficked 11th Avenue,
and the fact that 7th Avenue would have no mixed-use, that less than a
quarter of a block is proposed for mixed use on 13th, and only slightly
more than a block on 11th is proposed for mixed use. He felt a major
factor had been ignored in this decision-making process, in that
future transportation corridors in this area have not been finally
selected. He reiterated the rezoning of this warehouse property
would inhibit the incentive a possibility of converting it to a retail
outlet, and failed to see how it would be in the public interest. He
also said the Westside Plan had been handled in such a fashion that
it really is a collection of small parcel rezonings, and it was their
position that the Fasano principals do and should apply to this
matter. He felt the City has the burden of proof to show why this
property should be down-zoned and what public need is served.
He noted Dave Lowe, 390 West 11th, owner of Wyatt's, agreed with
the above statements, but would not be speaking.
Pierre VanRysselberghe, 888 West Polk Street, represented Arthur
Berwick, a residential property owner between Lincoln and Lawrence.
He expressed opposition to the rezoning of his parcel.
Ron Schmaedick, 315 West Broadway, said he felt there was a need
for a buffer zone between the commercial, traffic, and residential
areas. He noted the property in the area is under Fire Zone Code
II from Lincoln west to Washington. He said the entire building
located in any of this area must meet the commercial building Fire
Code standards even when only one-half of the building use is residen-
tial. He said it was not economically feasible to improve a building
to commercial safety standards and then rent one-half of it at residen-
tial rates. He noted the parking maximums prescribed by the ordinance
would be a disservice to both commercial and residential occupants,
citing the City encouraged parking off-street as much as possible but
the mixed-use zoning would limit parking being provided in a new
development. In areas of heavy foot traffic, parking strips should be
allowed to be paved. He also felt there was some legitimate confusion
over the existing conforming commercial uses and felt the ordinance
was not clear on this issue.
Eva Allen, 372 West Broadway, bought her property in the area in
1950. She said she remodeled her house and rents rooms and apart-
ments, saying there was then and still is a need for housing. She
was not against the mixed use if it would lower the value for peo-
ple who have lived in the area a considerable length of time and
r]
9/26/77--5
-7 U
have paid their taxes. She wondered if it were possible to cut the
zoning off from Washington to Chambers and keep the C-2 zoning. She
noted she wanted to sell the property and wanted to be protected. She
felt as close as the property was between Lincoln and Lawrence, it
would become commercial anyway, as it was so close to the downtown.
She felt she could sell her property for a higher value if it were
zoned C-2 rather than MU.
Margaret Ellis, 2486 Grovedale Drive, Springfield, owns property
at 276 West 12th. She wondered why, when people have to be housed,
it has to be at the expense of a few people who happen to own property
in the area in which it is wished to have them housed. She felt
low-income housing should be the responsibility of everyone in
the city and the city should not rely on zoning as means of housing
people who are unable to afford their own homes. She asked why she
should be more responsible for housing than people who live in other
areas of the city.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony
presented.
Mr. Saul prefaced his response to testimony raised by telling Council
the comments made at the time of the public hearing had been made
at great length before the Planning Commission and were not new informa-
tion. In response to Mr. Stafford and Mr. Murray's request for R-4
permits with conditional use procedures, he said the Planning Commis-
sion rejected this for several reasons. The specific development
standards were incorporated in the mixed-use zone to address the
problems faced in an R-4 District. He said the mixed-use zoning does
incorporate more severe and more restrictive developmental standards
than R-4. Another reason for rejecting this idea was that the mixed-
use zoning is to encourage high density and the Planning Commission
and staff felt it wrong to put impediments in the way of high-density
development.
In response to Mr. Hershner's remarks regarding Wyatt's, he said
the mixed use would affect only the north side parcel on West 11th.
Wyatt's existing tire service is on the south side and would not
be affected. He said the affected lot was primarily a vacant lot
used for parking with a warehouse at the rear of the property. He said
that operation is non-conforming in a C-2 District or an R-4 zone.
The tire recapping use is what makes it non-conforming. Also, that
particular lot is part of an entire block recommended for rezoning.
He reviewed for Council that the area was primarily now devoted to
housing, citing a 48-unit apartment complex to accommodate the elderly
being planned immediately east of the Wyatt property.
9/26/77--6
i
-1 zq
In response to a question from Mr. Lieuallen, Mr. Saul said the
southwest corner of 11th and Lawrence was retained as commercial
because at the present time it is developed with a major office
structure. On the south side of West 11th between Lincoln and Wash-
ington the property is substantially developed with exclusive commer-
cial uses. He pointed out that much of the remaining West 11th
frontage was zoned and developed residentially extending to the
west.
Mr. Delay asked staff to respond to testimony by Mr. Schmaedick
regarding outright uses. Mr. Saul said existing commercial uses
were permitted as outright uses under the proposed district. He
said this provision was included to specifically make clear that any
commerical uses in that area would not be created as non-conforming
uses. The one use that would not be subject to this provision would
be the existing Wyatt's on the north side of 11th.
Mr. Obie requested clarification regarding Mr. Schmaedick's testimony
and whether his use is now an outright use, acknowledging confusion
regarding the requirement of residential as part of his use. He asked
if it was a non-conforming use. Mr. Schmaedick asked if it is not
non-conforming now, would that property be available for use in
some other type of business, or would it have C-2 privileges on an
indefinite basis. Mr. Saul said the way the categories are listed in
the ordinance, that present structure would be classified as an
office use and could be used as a general or professional office.
Mr. Schmaedick could sell the property for that similar use. In
addition, he would have the option under a conditional use permit to
expand his floor space to 2,000 square feet. If, however, the exist-
ing building were destroyed by fire or some other such disaster, it
would be subject to standards of this district, i.e., both business
and residential use.
Mr. Obie asked if the ordinance would preclude expansion of Mr.
Schmaedick's office by more than 2000 square feet. Mr. Saul replied
that it would. Mr. Obie said he had difficulty with that as it seemed
the owner would not have the privileges he had before.
In regard to Wyatt's situation and the grocery store, Mr. Obie
said he had concerns relative to the traffic on 11th, as it seems
to be a major arterial. He had difficulty placing a higher value
on a state office building than the value placed on a person who
has a grocery store--asking value to whom? He wondered what con-
sideration had been given to the 11th Street traffic when the
initial proposal was made to reclassify this area to mixed use.
•
9/26/77--7
-730
Mr. Saul.said the determination that the State office building
would not-be included was not based on any difference of assessed
value, but rather the fact that the grocery store is a prototype
of the development that would be possible in this mixed-use zone,
a store with an apartment above. The existing State Office Building
would be contrary to any residential character and there was no
residential quality to encourage, preserve, or enchance. With respect
to the traffic volume, the staff did not predicate its original
recommendation for this rezoning on traffic volumes, noting the
traffic volume did not constitute the basis for saying residential was
inappropriate.
Mr. Obie then wondered why the State Office Building differed from
Mr. Schmaedick's office. Mr. Saul replied, the State Office Building
occupied well over one-quarter of a block while Schmaedick was in
a much smaller area in an existing house that had been converted
to office space.
C.B. 1543--Rezoning properties located between 7th and 13th hvenues,
extending from Washington Street to Lincoln Street, from
I-B-1 C-2 and R-3 to MU Mixed Use was read by council bill number
and title only, there being no Council member present that
requested it be read in full.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that findings supporting
the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and
minutes of August 15, 1977, be adopted by reference thereto;
that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only,
with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be
considered at this time.
Mr. Obie expressed concern regarding the inequality between equivalent
situations and inconsistent treatment between property owners under
this proposal. Mr. Delay said from reading the material and listening
to testimony, he felt the Planning Commission had dealt well with a
very difficult problem and the mixed-use zoning was a good plan for
the area.
Mr. Williams expressed concern with the process and would vote no
on the motion. He said he was concerned about that part of town
but was terrified of the process in which the staff has initiated
the request for a major zone change that may be valid, but felt
it spooky when city government initiates a plan against the wishes
of property owners. He expressed concern in supporting city govern-
ment when it decides to change the rules under which the people have
been operating for some time and rules which the people have had to,
fight the process. '
In regard.to Mr. William's concern regarding the initiation of the
zone change, Mr. Saul said under the City Code the Planning Commission
or the City Council is empowered to initiate zone changes. He said
s
9/26/77--8
-131
in this instance, the Planning Commission recommended in January
1976 it undertake a study of this area and from that came the
Blayney Report in July of 1976. One specific recommendation was to
rezone to high-density residential use. The Planning Commission
conducted hearings on the Blayney Report and as a result in September
1976 recommended to City Council a policy statement on transportation
corridors in the area. Regarding the rezoning, the Planning Commis-
sion informed City Council of their intent to initiate this action,
noting Council was aware in September of 1976 and no objections
were voiced at that time by Council. Regarding the lack of an appli-
cant's statement, he said that was the purpose of the extensive
Staff Notes provided for Council, as the burden of proof was on the
City to prove its case.
Mr. Delay said if Mr. Williams were going to take the position
of not changing the ground rules, then Council would have to scrap
plans for updating the 1990 Plan, refinement plans, etc. He said
the Council and City cannot progress into a changing world without
making changes and people will inevitably resist some of those changes,
noting that was a normal process. He said given the large area
under consideration for this rezoning, he was surprised there had been
so little opposition.
Mr. Lieuallen said he felt the Council was obligated to try to bring
the zoning into compliance with the General Plan. He said it is
the function of the Planning Commission to do that. He noted the
lengthy public hearings and public input on this zone change and felt
it is a reasonable compromise, saying it would be impossible to find a
proposal that would satisfy everyone. However, this proposal seems
to satisfy the majority of the people in the area and he did not
feel that there was that much opposition to it. He noted it seemed to
be a very workable compromise.
Ms. Smith expressed appreciation for Mr. Saul's background material,
and asked if the new plan for revising the downtown would be suppor-
tive of this rezoning. Mr. Saul replied that the Elbasani Report had
been predicated on the rezoning and would be complementary to it.
Ms. Smith wished there had been a better compromise worked out to the
satisfaction of Wyatt's and expressed some concern about that, but
noted she would be voting for the motion.
Vote was taken on the motion, which carried with all Council
members present voting aye except Williams and Obie voting no.
Lacking unanimous consent, the council bill will be held for
second reading October 10, 1977.
A short recess was taken.
0
9/26/77--9
131
I-B-2
B. Code Amendment re: Tree cutting--amending City Code Sections 6.320
and 6.330
Recommended unanimously by Planning Commission September 6, 1977.
The recommended amendments would limit tree cutting in approved
subdivisions to street rights-of-way, public utility easements,
and not more than five trees per individual lot per year. Council
had previously discussed this amendment in concept because of recent
tree cutting in the South Hills. Mr. Saul said Council had discussed
on a number of occasions the subject of tree cutting and regulatory
mechanisms by which tree cutting might be controlled. In August,
the Planning staff had outlined a possible amendment to the Code
which would remove subdivisions from the Tree Cutting Ordinance.
City Attorney had prepared an amendment to the tree cutting regula-
tions which includes the concept proposed by Council. He reviewed the
proposed amendment, saying it limits the blanket provision in the
present code for subdivisions.
Scott Lieuallen left the meeting.
Mr. Saul continued the Planning Commission had suggested the use
of the Joint Parks Committee to review strengthening the overall
ordinance.
Mr. Obie said he recalled his motion included in the context that
trees would not be cut in approved subdivisions prior to building
permits being issued. He asked if the Planning Commission had dealt
with that proposal. Mr. Saul said the Planning Commission did not
deal with it directly, reviewing that the matter had been discussed
with the City Attorney, noting a problem of trying to integrate
the present proposed amendment to the existing ordinance. He said
the present ordinance allows a property owner to remove up to five
trees per lot without a permit. To try to prohibit any tree removal
would present many difficulties and problems and the attorney had
recommended the present drafted ordinance. Mr. Obie requested
Mr. Long to determine how that could be accomplished tonight.
Ms. Smith wondered, in regard to the Joint Parks review, if any time
frame had been attached. Mr. Saul said no specific time frame had
been recommended, but it would be at the discretion of Council in
regard to urgency.
Public hearing was opened.
James Johnston, 179 West 37th, represented the Crest Drive Neighbor-
hood Association and other groups who had concern for tree cutting.
He requested that Council consider the definition of a tree having a
trunk 18 inches in circumference at a point 4-1/2 feet above the
ground be inserted and strike out the previous 36-inch circumference.
Another concern was that trees not be removed until building permits
are issued. In addition, he felt it very important that the Tree
Cutting Ordiance be strengthened very quickly and development should
not continue very much longer without some modification to the ordinance.
9/26/77--10
X33
Ray Wiley, 2100 Shields., noted he had heard that the ordinance
would not have prevented the clear cutting that occurred in the
west end of Shields, that the allowed five trees per lot would have been
sufficient for the developer to have done what he indeed had done.
He did not feel the neighborhood's concerns had been adequately
addressed and recommended the ordinance be modified to be more
restrictive in the number of trees, or sent back to the Planning
Commission for further strength.
Dewey Newman, 2040 Hawkins Lane, represented Hawkins Highlands
Association. They requested some strengthening of the ordinance
and felt the circumference of the trees should be defined as much
smaller as 36 inches.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony
presented.
Mr. Obie requested clarification, noting the Planning Commission
spoke in terms of a Joint Parks Committee and he seemed to remember
there was a special Mayor's committee. He felt it better for the
Mayor to appoint a committee that would have a more balanced member-
ship with interested individuals with expertise.
Mr. Long responded to Mr. Obie's earlier question regarding no tree
removal prior to a building permit being issued. He said the approach
is to regulate but not to prohibit tree cutting. He said this ordi-
nance does not attempt to confiscate merchantable timber. If Council
wishes to address the question, then it would have to address it in a
totally different approach as no words would fit into this approach,
noting they would have to develop a new scheme. That approach would
not be possible under the present ordinance.
Mr. Obie said the present ordinance now allows five trees per lot
per year and it seemed to him that if they allowed no trees per
lot in any year until a building permit were issued, that change
could be made. Mr. Long said he and his staff would want to do some
very in-depth research before adopting the ordinance saying the
person could not cut any tree. The City could face a claim of taking
private property without just compensation. He said without making
a full-scale reassessment, he would not want to expose the City
to such a claim.
Ms. Smith recollected in previous discussions that Mr. Saul had
said limiting tree removal until after a building permit had been
issued would be a very expensive procedure and felt if Council
wished to go that way it needed much more information. Mr. Saul
said he had told Council previously that in any event keying
into a building permit simply shifts the time when the removal of
trees would occur. To go beyond that point raises all sorts of
9/26/77--11
1~~
questions including expensive staff time and whether or not it is
a legitimate function in which the City wishes to engage. Ms. Smith
said it seems the Committee could pursue other alternatives. Mr.
Saul said that recommendation had been made to the Planning Commission
that significant improvements could enhance the existing tree ordi-
nance. He noted for Council the existing tree regulations were a
result of a lengthy process, and philosophical and practical problems
would be raised in strengthening or extending the tree ordinance. He
said it would be misleading to think it would be an easy task, that it
would not be impossible but it would be difficult.
C.B. 1544--Concerning tree removal; amending Sections 6.320 and 6.330
of City Code 1971; and declaring an emergency was read by
council bill number and title only, there being no Council
members present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read
the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous
consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at
this time.
Mr. Obie moved to amend the motion to request revitalization
of a Mayor's committee to strengthen the tree cutting ordinance.
In pursuant discussion, it was determined this could be a separate
motion, so Mr. Obie withdrew his amendment.
Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. The
bill was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be
approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All
Council members present voting aye, the vote was declared
passed and numbered 18053.
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, that the Mayor
constitute a committee to study past impact of tree
cutting ordinance and study the proposed changes regarding
the issues discussed in the past six months.
Mr. Delay noted that Council was going to have to be prepared to look
at some very difficult decisions. Mr. Hamel requested that some of
the people on the Committee be forestry people. Mr. Bradley expressed
concern regarding the composition of the Committee, requesting the
Mayor select qualified members. Mr. Obie said in regard to the
Committee that he saw two sides to the situation: The danger of fir
trees in subdivisions and the erosion aspect of removing the fir
trees, and felt these aspects should be studied.
0
9/26/77--12
-135
Mr. Haws wondered about the time frame of the report from the
Committee, that perhaps six months might be possible, what
would happen in that interim period, and if Council could afford
to wait that long. Assistant Manager noted the last time Council
addressed this issue was in response to a crisis situation and it
took four months. In expanding the existing tree ordinance, he
said there would be a need for very sound legal basis and the neces-
sity to take in diverse interests and felt Council was looking at
least six months' time. It was the consensus of Council that six
months was not an unreasonable amount of time.
Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously.
II-A-S
C. Concurrent Annexation and Rezoning: Property located between I-105
and Willamette River, west of Country Club Road (Zellner)(Z 71-34)
and A 71-N) from County PR to City C-2 PD
ecommenaea unanimously by Planning Commission August 8,
Mr. Saul reported the Council in 1971 had recommended annexation
of the property to the Boundary Commission with the condition that
such annexation be completed after development of the property.
Since 1973 the City has not been following that policy, for two
reasons: 1) Financial work done in 1973 and 1974 indicated the
presumed advantage to the City was illusory unless it was a multi-
million dollar project; and 2) the confusion created not only for the
City and Lane County, but for the applicant seeking approval. Council
had also approved C-2 PD zoning of property with condition that final
approval of zoning be withheld pending final approval of planned unit
development. The recommendation for the Council is to delete both
prior conditions and complete the annexation and zoning at this time.
Mr. Saul noted this action is consistent with policies followed by the
City in recent years.
Mr. Delay noted that this property is in the Greenway and wondered
to what extent the City has any criteria to apply to the development
plans. Mr. Saul said under ordinances adopted by the City, and under
the Statewide Goal No. 15, any development on the property would be
subject to review under PUD regulations. In the course of that
review, Goal 15.criteria would have to be met. The only other re-
quirement would be that any time a development proposal is submitted,
the State Department of Parks and Transportation be notified by
certified mail.
In calling for ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest, Ms.
Smith noted she would abstain from discussion in voting as she had
a conflict of interest. No other conflicts were expressed by
Councilors.
Staff Notes and minutes of the Planning Commission, August 8, 1977,
were entered as part of the record by reference thereto.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
9/26/77--13
136
Res. No. 2759--Forwarding to Boundary Commission recommendation for
annexation of property located between I-105 and
Willamette River, west of Country Club Road was read
by number and title.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution.
Mr. Bradley asked for clarification as to whether this annexation
complied with Goal No. 15 of the Statewide Goals. Mr. Saul responded
the purpose of Goal 15 was to review the development on the property
in compliance with the Goal. Mr. Bradley said he was under the
impression that municipal annexations must comply with LCDC goals.
He asked if there were a goal of LCDC that would apply to this annexa-
tion, and if that were No. 15, whether it was necessary to adopt
affirmative findings. Mr. Saul again explained that question would
come when the specific PUD development was being reviewed to see if it
complied with that goal. Mr. Bradley requested a clarification from
the City Attorney.
Mr. Long referred to the Peterson vs. Klamath Falls case which dealt
with a situation where City-County had no boundary commission.
He felt the Lane County Boundary Commission was under obligation
to determine compliance with the goals. The purpose of this City
is to recommend only. He said Mr. Bradley's question was under
study by the Attorney's Office, but thought it was within a realm of
reasonable activity to not make such findings when. only recommending
for annexation.
Vote was taken on the motion, which carried with all Council
members present voting aye except Mr. Bradley and Ms. Smith
abstaining.
C.B. 1545--Rezoning from County PR to City C-2 PD property located
between I-105 and Willamette River, west of Country Club
Road, was read by council bill number and title only, there
being no Council member present requesting that it be read
in full.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that findings supporting
the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and
minutes of August 8, 1977, be adopted by reference thereto; that
the bill be read the second time by council bill number only,
with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be
considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously, except
Ms. Smith and Mr. Bradley abstaining and the bill was read the
second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members
present voting aye, except Ms. Smith and Mr. Bradley abstaining,
the bill was declared passed and numbered 18054.
9/26/77--14
X37
II-A-7 D. Proposed rate increases for ambulance and mobilchair services
Manager explained the requested rate increase had been ten percent,
i with Springfield Council and local staff proposing an 8.2 percent
increase. He said there had been some disagreement on mobilchair rates
and ultimately the subcommittee had recommended a hearing with six
alternatives to be considered: 1) Adopt a zone charge as passed by
Springfield Council of $7 plus $1 per zone for which the mobilchair
passes, with no charge for return trips; 2) go to a base rate for
pickup anywhere in the city of $8 plus .50 cents per transported
mile; 3) leave the rate at $5, but allow a charge for return trip of
$5; 4) leave the rate at $5, but allow a charge for return trip of
$2.50; 5) decide not to regulate the mobilchair rates and regulate
only the ambulance rates; 6) keep the rates at the current level of
$5, and provide from City funds a payment to the ambulance service for
the $18,000 deficit.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Mr. Obie expressed support of Alternative No. 4. In addressing the
issue of how often the rate increases should be reviewed, an annual
review was considered to be appropriate. He also noted the expansion
of services proposed by the ambulance company. Mr. Haws also expressed
support for Alternative 4.
Res. No. 2742--Concerning rates for ambulances and mobilchairs and
amending resolution No. 2517 adopted June 14, 1976, was
read by number and title.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution,
and to include mobilchair rates as outlined in Alternative 4.
Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously.
II-B-2 E. Liquor license application: New outlet, Monty's Pizza, 1809 Franklin
Blvd., (RMB) Byrd Development, Ltd. (Randy & Vicki Byrd, and Arlen &
Shermaine Swearingen)
Manager noted there was one objector, the Green Tree Motel and Green-
house Restaurant; there were five non-objectors. Staff found all
papers in order and recommended approval.
Public hearing was opened.
Randy Byrd, 1809 Franklin Blvd., was available to answer questions.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony
presented.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to forward to OLCC with
approval. Motion carried unanimously.
9/26/77--15
-739.
11. Ordinances for first reading
Manager noted council bill 1473 regarding planned unit development
regulations had been discussed by Council previously and the present
ordinance provided for a Hearings Official to review the diagrammatic and
preliminary stages of a PUD, with City Council to hear appeals. The scope
of appeals would relate to matters "on the record".
II-B-3 C.B. 1473--Concerning Planned Unit Development regulations; amending
Eugene City Code 1971; and declaring an emergency was read
by council bill number and title only, there being no Council
member present requesting it be read in full.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be
read the second time by council bill number only, with
unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be
considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and
the bill was read the second time by council bill number
only.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be
approved and given final passage.
Mr. Bradley was going to vote no on the motion, restating his feeling
that this would restrain the public's access by having the appeal based
"on the record". He felt it was making it too much a legal process
and was contrary to citizen participation.
Mr. Haws noted a report would be back in nine months time, he was going
to vote for the motion, and would review how the process was working in
nine months with the freedom to vote against the process at that time.
Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, except
Mr. Bradley voting no, the bill was declared passed and numbered
18055.
II-B-4 C.B. 1546--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer
within Oakway 1st Addition; sanitary sewer to serve Oakway 1st
Addition bounded by Cal Young Road, west boundary of Oakway
Addition, north boundary of Fair Oaks Addition, and Norkenzie
Road extended southerly was read by council bill number and
title only, there being no Council member present requesting
it be read in full.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read
the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing
October 3, 1977, with panel recommendation brought back for
Council consideration for final reading on October 10, 1977.
Motion carried unanimously.
9/26/77--16
139
II-B-S C.B. 1547--Levying assessments
tion area generally
Dillard Road on the
Loop on the east was
only, there being no
read in full.
for sanitary sewer: Skyline Loop annexa-
bounded by 43rd Avenue on the north;
south and west; and east of Skyline
read by council bill number and title
Council member present requesting it be
Mr Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read
the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing
October 3, 1977, with panel recommendation brought back for
Council consideration for final reading on October 10, 1977.
Motion carried unanimously.
II-B-6 III. Request by coalition of women concerned for their rights--Ms. Doris Storm,
2180 Wood Acres Drive, Eugene.
Manager referred Council to correspondence and a request by the group to
make a presentation.
Mr. Haws raised the issue of Council adjournment at 10:30 p.m., and
suggested limiting the debate to ten minutes, five minutes for each side.
He noted that issues of major importance before the City were often
limited to 20 minutes. Ellen Lyford, representing the group, said she felt
the subject matter could not be covered in that period of time and requested
Council consider putting it on a forthcoming agenda. Mr. Haws replied
that he felt an argument could be advanced in five minutes' time. Ms.
Lyford replied that the group felt that it needed 20 minutes.
Mr. Bradley felt the group should be allowed to make its presentation as
they were present at the meeting this evening.
Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to allow the group
20 minutes for their presentation. Motion carried unaninously.
The following persons made presentations: Ellen Lyford, 2635 Lincoln
Street; Doris Storms, 2180 Wood Acres Drive; Marguerite Campbell, 25346
Hunter Road, Veneta; Lorene Henry, 2620 Filmore; Helen Taff, 25292
Perkins Road, Veneta; and Eva Adkins, 93121 Smith Road, Junction City.
The thrust of their testimony centered around requesting that the member-
ship of the Women's Commission be balanced between those persons with
views for and against ERA, abortion, and gay rights. They felt the
homemakers should have representation on the Women's Commission; expressed
concern that they were not allowed to participate in the Women's Equality
Day; that the Women's Commission was not constituted in compliance with
1972 Federal Act; that the main speaker for the Women's Equality Day was
Nancie Fadeley, who was pro-abortion and pro-ERA; protested City taxes
paying for the Commission which did not represent all points of view in
the City; and expressed concern that their representation at an August 2,
Women's Commission meeting was brushed off with the statement that
"the Commission was too busy". They requested Council double the size of
the Women's Commission to give a broader scope, and Council consider
changing its criteria for selecting membership on the Commission to allow
for a balanced view on these various issues.
9/26/77--17
7W
Therese Engelmann, 296 West 8th, explained in regard to the Women's
Equality Day, the event has been treated in the past as one of singing,
dancing, gymnastics, and holiday joyful atmosphere. It had been tra-
dition to have no more than one speaker and the topic chosen for this
year's event was "something for women"--with the choice to celebrate the
passage of the Displaced Homemaker Bill. Nancie Fadeley had been chosen
as the one speaker because she had sponsored that particular bill. It was
felt that if this group had been allowed to speak and present its views,
then others would have the right to present their opposing views and the
celebration might have been spoiled. The group was given the same right
as any other group to display its literature. In regard to the charge
there were no homemakers on the Commission, Ms. Englemann reported that
all but one of the women were homemakers. It was true that many have other
jobs, but all of them have homes to keep and children to raise. During
the Women's Equality Day speech, she said no word was spoken about abor-
tion, contrary to the statement made by the women testififying this evening.
Further, she said the Women's Commission does do many things for the
homemaker, citing it supported the Displaced Homemaker Bill, Womenspace,
women on welfare, single parents, job sharing, and divorce legislation to
favor women who want to stay in the home. The criterion in the statute
for choosing membership requires interest and expertise in the areas of
discrimination and she felt these were good criterion. She did not favor
changing the criterion to get particular points of views on particular
issues.
Andy Clement, Human Rights Specialist, replied to the charges regarding
the August 2 meeting of the Women's Commission, saying the Commissions
were never too busy, they were always open to anyone, people were never
denied the right to input, and in fact the Commissions were seeking
input from community members. In response to the charge that a staff
member, Betsy Merck, had appeared on a local radio station supporting ERA
and abortion, he said she many times throughout the presentation differen-
tiated her role with the City and her own personal views, noting she was
speaking only for herself. Mr. Clement continued that each year there are
three memberships for each commission open and the commissions are con-
stantly looking for new applicants. He suggested that women in this group
pick up an application in the City Manager's Office and make application
for the Women's Commission if they so wish. He also said he felt members
of the Council had attempted to be very fair in selecting members with
divergent views.
Mr. Haws thanked the women for their presentation, noting the City does
have a process for Commission membership selection. He felt it would
be a mistake to overtly select persons of one particular point of view.
He encouraged those persons to make application for the Commissions.
Mr. Delay did not question the motivation for the presentation made, but
did express concern that he had seen no particular important City business
involved. He felt Council had become a publicity forum and hoped it would
not encourage any group who felt it needed representation on a Commission
to come to Council just by making a request, thereby gaining publicity.
9/26/77--18
141
Ms. Storm again raised the question of whether the Women's Commission
was abiding by the Federal Advisory Act Public Law 92-4635B2, and Mr.
Bradley referred the question to Mr. Long for a future report.
IV. Resolutions
III-A-2 Res. No. 1760--Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period
September 12 through September 26, 1977 was read by
number and title.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution.
Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously with Mr. Haws
voting no on Item 6.
III-A-3 V. Approval of Minutes
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to approve Council
minutes September 12, 1977. Roll call vote. Motion carried
unanimously.
Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to
September 28, 1977.
Charles T. Henry
is City Manager
CTH:DT:jm/CM21a1
is
9/26/77--19
-147-
•
CITY OF EUGENE OREGON
ORDINANCE No. 9188
0
AN ORDINANCE TO CREATE OR DIVIDE THE CITY INTO DISTRICTS WITHIN SOME
OF WHICH IT SHALL BE LAWFUL, AND WITHIN OTHERS OF WHICH IT SHALL BE
UNLAWFUL TO ERECT, CONSTRUCT, ALTER, OR MAINTAIN_CERTAIII BUILDINGS,
OR TO CARRY ON CERTAIN TRADES OR CALLINGS; TO LIMIT THE FIGHT AND
BULK OF FUTURE BUILDINGS; TO PROVIDE FOR SETBACK LINES, SIZE OF YARDS
AND OTHER OPEN SPACES; TO. ESTABLISH MINIMUM LOT SIZES; TO PROVIDE FOR
AUTOMOBILE PARKING FACILITIES; TO PROVIDE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT, ADJUST-
MENT AND AMENDTIENT THEREOF; AND TO PRESCRIBE PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLA-
TION IN THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON; AND TO REPEAL ORDINANCE No. 841
AND ALL AMENDMENTS THERETO, AND ORDINANCES 6992, 8693, 8700.
"
THE COMr.ION COUNCIL OF THE.CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS :
SECTION I. TITLE
I
A. This Ordinance shall be known as the "Comprehensive Zoning
Plan of the City-of Eugen0'.
B. This Ordinance shall consist of the text hereof and the map
entitled "Eugene, Oregon, Zoning Map, Part of the Comprehensive Zoning
Plan", and identified by the approving signatures of the Mayor, the
President of the Planning Commission, and the City Recorder of this
_
City. If any conflict between said map and this Ordinance should
arise, the text of this Ordinamce will prevail.
SECTION II. PURPOSE
A. `The purpose of this Ordinance is to establish for the City
of Eugene, a comprehensive zoning plan designed to regulate and
restrict the location and use of buildings, structures, and land
for residence, commerce, industry, and other purposes; to regulate
and limit the height, number of stories, and percent of lot coverage
of buildings and other structures hereafter erected or altered; to
establish minimum widths and areas for the subdivision or resubdi-
vision of lots; and to regulate and establish minimum requirements
for private garages or off-street parking facilities according to
zones or districts and type of building or structure.
B. The controls as set forth in this Ordinance are deemed
necessary in order to encourage the most appropriate use of land; to
conserve and stabilize the value of property; to aid in the rendering
of fire and police protection; to provide adequate open spaces for
light and air; to lessen the congestion of automotive traffic and
parking on streets; to give an orderly. growth to the City, preventing
undue concentrations of population, and thereby aiding in the planning
of community utilities and facilities such as water, sewerage, electric
_
cal distribution systems., transportation, schools,.parks, and other
public requirements; and to promote public health, safety, and.general
welfare.
SECTION III. DEFINITIONS
A. For the purpose of this Ordinance certain words, terms, and
phrases are defined as follows:
B. Words used in the present tense include the future; the singu-
lar member includes the plural; and the word "shall" is mandatory and
not directory. Whenever the term "this Ordinance" is used herewith, it
shall be deemed to include all amendments thereto as may hereafter from
time to time be adopted.
ACCESSORY BUILDING shall mean any subordinate building.or
portion of a main building,.the use of which is incidental,
appropriate, and subordinate to that of the main building.
ACCESSORY USE shall mean a use incidental; appropriate,
and subordinate to the main use of a lot or building.
ALLEY: A public gray not over thirty (30) feet wide providing
a secondary means of access to private property.
?.ALTER: To change any of the supporting members of a building
-or structure, such as bearing walls, columns, beams, or girders.
APARTMENT HOUSE: A building or portion thereof used or intended
to be used as the home of three (3) or more families or house-
holders living independently of each other,
AUTO COURT: A combination or group of two (2) or more detached
or semi-detached permanent dwellings or dwelling units occupying
a building site in one ownership ovmed.and used to furnish tran-
sient living accommodations.
-AUT011OPILE TRAILER CAIrIP: A parcel of land used for the accommo-
dation of two 2 or more automobile trailers occupied as living
or sleeping quarters.
AUTOMOBILE and/or TRAILER SALES AREA: Uncovered premises used
for display, sale, or rental of new or used automobiles or
trailers.
,AUTO WRECKING YARDS (JUNK YARDS): Premises used for the storage
or sale of used automobile parts or for the storage,.dismantling,
or abandon,aent of junk,,obsolete automobiles, trailers, machinery,
or parts thereof.
..BASEMEMT: A story partly or wholly under ground. A basement
.shall be counted as a story for purposes of height measurement
where more than one-half of its height is above the average level
of the adjoining ground.
-2-
~r
BOARDING HOUSE: A building or portion thereof having only one
1 kitchen and used for the purpose of providing meals and/or
lodging for pay or compensation•of any kind to persons other
than members of a family occupying.such a.dwelling.
BUILDING: The terms "building" and "structure" shall be synony-
mous and shall mean that which is framed, erected, constructed,
"
or placed to stand temporarily or permanently on a parcel of
land. Driveways or walks not more than six (6) inches higher"
than the. ground on which they rest shall not be considered....,
:buildings.
BUILDING HEIGHT: The vertical distance from the average
finished grade at the front of the building to the highest
,
point of a building, exclusive of-chimneys..
CEIMTERY: Land used or intended to be used for the burial of the
dead and dedicated for cemetery purposes including columbaria,
.
cremetories, mausoleums, and mortuaries, when operated in conjunc-
tion with and within the boundary of such cemetery.
CHURCH: A building, together with its accessory buildings and
uses, where persons regularly assemble for worship, and which
.
building, together with its accessory buildings and uses, is
+
.
maintained and controlled by a religious body organized to sus-
` .
tain public worship.
r
CLUB shall mean . any organization,. group, or association supported
by the members thereof, the purpose of which is to render a ser-
vice customarily rendered for members and their guests, but shall
not include any organization, group, or association, the chief
'
activity of which is to render a service customarily carried on
as a business.
COMAD:SSION shall mean,the Eugene City Planning Commission.
COURT: An open unoccupied space, other than a yard, on the same
lo:-with a.building•and bounded on two (2) or.more sides by such
building.
COURT APARTMENTS: One or more multiple 'dwellings arranged around
two 2 or three (3) sides of a court which opens onto a street.
CURB LEVEL: The level of the established curb in front of the
building measured at the center of such front. Where no curb
level has.been established, the.City Engineer shall establish
such curb level for the•purpose of this ordinance.
_
DWELLING: A building or portion thereof, which is occupied in
whole or in part as a home, residence, or. sleeping place, either
permanently or' temporarily by one (1) : or. more families .
0
• ~ r
DWELLING MULTIPLE: A building designed for or. occupied by
Free 3 or more families living independently of each other.
DWELLING, SINGLE-FAT;,TILY: A detached building designed for and
occupied exclusively by one (1) related family. Not more than
three (3) people in addition to the related family may be regu-
larly lodged or furnished meals therein. The building may have
only one (1) kitchen.
DWELLING, 770-FAXILY (DUPLEX): A building designed and used
exclusively for occupancy by two (2) families living independently
of each other.
FRATERNITY. SORORITY, STUDENT HOT,.Z: A residential building in
which living accommodations are furnished to college students.
GARAGE, PRIVATE: A detached accessory building or portion of a
.main- building for the parking of automobiles of the occupants
of the premises.
GARAGE, PUBLIC: A building other than a private garage used
for the care, repair, parking, or storage of automobiles.
GUEST HOUSE, SERVANT'S QUARTERS: An accessory building without
kitchen or cooking facilities and occupied solely by non-paying
guests or by servants employed on the premises.
HALF STORY means that part of any building wholly.or partly
within the roof frame and not occupying more than two-thirds (2/3)
of the floor area immediately below it.
HEIGHT OF BUILDING: See Building Height.
HOME OCCUPATION: An occupation carried on by an occupant of
the dwelling which is incidental or secondary to residential.
use; provided it does not change the character of the dwelling
and no assistants are employed.
HOTEL LODGING HOUSE or ROOMNG HOUSE: A building or portion
thereof containing four ) or more sleeping rooms customarily
occupied;as more or less temporary abiding places for individuals.
INTERIOR LOT: A lot, other than a corner lot, having frontage
on only one side.
KENNEL: Any lot or premise on which three (3) or more dogs over
the age of four (4) months are kept.
KEY LOT: A lot, the side of which abuts the rear line of one
or more adjacent lots.
LOADING SPACE: An off-street space or berth on the same lot
with a building for the temporary parking of a commercial vehicle
while loading or unloading merchandise or materials, and which
abuts upon a street, alley, or other appropriate means of access.
LOT: Land occupied or to be occupied by a building and its acces-
sory buildings, including such open spaces as are required under
this Ordinance and having frontage upon'a street.
LOT AREA: The total area measured on a horizontal plane within
the lot lines of a lot.
LOT DEPTH: The horizontal distance between the front and rear
lot lines measured in the mean direction of the side lot lines.
LOT LINE, FROM The private property line contiguous with the
public street line or place. -For corner lots the front lot line
shall be the narrowest street frontage or as shown on the official
plat of the property.
LOT LINE, REAR: A lot line which is opposite and most distant
from the front lot line. In the case of a triangular shaped lot,
the rear lot line for building purposes shall be assumed to be a
line ten (10) feet in length within the lot parallel to and at
the maximum distance from the front lot line.
LOT LINE, SIDE: Any lot line which is not a front or rear lot
line.
LOT WIDTH: The horizontal distance between the side lot lines
measured at right.angles to the lot depth at a point midway
between the front and rear lot lines.
NONCONFORMING USE. A building, structure, or land use which
lawfully existed at the time this Ordinance became effective,
but does not conform to the use regulations,'setbacks, maximum
lot coverage, or other provisions herein established for the
district or zone in.which it has been classified by this
Ordinance.
PARKING AREA, AUTOMOBILE: Space within a public parking area,
or a building, exclusive of driveways, ramps, columns, office,
and work areas, for the temporary parking or storage of one (1)
automobile.
PARKING AREA, PUBLIC: Privately or publicly owned property,
other than streets or alleys., used for the parking of four (4)
or more automobiles and open for public use, whether free, for
accommodation of clients or customers,.or for.hourlry, daily,
or monthly rental fees.
SITE-RESIDENTIAL An area of more or less intensive development,,
surrounding.a dwelling, not less than.sixty (60), feet wide nor-
-5-
less than six-thousand (6,000) square feet in area, and•.compar-
able to a normal city lot.
STABLE, PRIVATE: An accessory building in which horses are kept
for private use and not for remuneration, hire, or sale.
STABLE,.PUBLIC: A building in which horses are kept for remunera-
tion, hire, or sale.
STORY: That portion of a building included between the upper sur-
face of any floor-and the upper surface of the floor next above,
except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building
included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the
ceiling above. (See Basement)
.-STREET. A public thoroughfare, avenue, road, highway, boulevard,
parkway, way, drive, lane, court, or private easement providing
the primary roadway for ingress and egress from the property
abutting thereon.
STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS: (See Alter.)
STRUCTJRE: Anytizing.constructed or erected which requires loca-
tion on the ground or attachment to something having a location
on the ground.
TOURIST COURT: (See Auto. Court)
TRAILER CAMPS: (See Automobile Trailer Camps)
USE: The purpose for which land or a building is arranged, designed,
or intended, or for which either land or a building is or may be
occupied or maintained.
...VISION CLEARANCE: A triangular area at the street or highway
_-:.corner of a corner lot, or the alley-street intersection of a lot,
the space being defined by a line across the corner, the ends of
which are on the street or alley right-of-way lines an equal and
specified distance from the corner and containing no planting,
walls, structures, or-temporary or permanent obstruction exceed-
inj three and one--half (31) feet in height above the curb level.
YARD: An open space on the same lot with a building unoccupied
and unobstructed from the ground upward, except as otherwise
provided herein.
YARD, FRONT: A yard between the front line of the building (ex-
elusive of steps) and the front property line.
YARD, REAR: An open unoccupied space on the same lot with a build-
ing, between the rear line of the building (exclusive of steps,
.porches, and accessory buildings) and the rear line of the lot.
-6-
f
_ YARD, SIDE: An open unoccupied space on, the same lot with a
building, between the side eves line of the building and the
side line of the lot.
r
SECTION IV. DISTRICTS OR ZONES
A. USE
No building, structure, or land shall be used, and no building or
structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered, enlarged or
maintained except for the following uses: ,
1. A dwelling arranged, intended,. and designated exclusively for one
(1) family.
2. Dwellings for two (2) families (duplex) on.corner lots provided
that the minimum lot area per family unit shall be twenty-five hundred
-,(2500) square feet and the maximum lot coverage shall not exceed forty (4YO
..percent.
3. Accessory buildings` on the rear half of the building site used
'as garage, store rooms, wood sheds, work shops, laundries, playhouses,
greenhouses, poultry houses, animal shelters, or similar and related ac-
cessory uses for which a special permit has been issued; provided, however,
that there shall be not more than four (4) buildings allowed as accessory
to any single-family dwelling.
4. Parks, playgrounds, golf courses, or community centers.
.5. Hospitals; provided that any buildings used for hospital purposes
shall provide and maintain setbacks from side and rear property lines
(except on the street side of corner lots) of at least fifty (50) feet.
Alleys contiguous to or within the property being used for hospital pur-
poses may be included in the required setback.
6. Schools'-,(elementary, junior high, and high); providing setbacks
.are established as given in A-5 above.
7. -Privately operated kindergartens or day nurseries; provided the
residential character of the building is maintained.
8. Churches with yards as established under A-5 above; provided,
however, in establishing building setback lines, a p~irsonage (free-standing
or attached to a church by a vestibule) shall be considered as a residen-
tial structure.
9. Public buildin--s such as fire stations, libraries, sub-stations,
pump stations, and community buildings; provided that side and rear yards
shall be twenty (20) percent of the property width, but not less than ten
(10) feet nor necessarily more than thirty (30) feet.
10. -Crop cultivation or farm and truck gardens, including plant
nurseries. i
11. The hatching and raising of poultry and fowl, the raising of
rabbits, bees, and the like, and the keeping of domestic animals except
pigs, as an incidental use, provided that:
a. Cows, horses, sheep, or goats cannot be kept on lots
having an area of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, • -
and under no circumstances shall they be kept for commercial
purposes. The total number of all such animals (other than their
-8-
yy
t
young under the age of six (6) months) allowed on a lot shall
be limited to the square footage of the lot divided by the total
minimum areas required for each animal as listed below:
Horse 10,000 square foot area
Cow 10,000 square foot area
Goat or Sheep 5,000 square foot area
b. The number of chickens, other fowl, and/or•rabbits (over
the age of six (6) months) shall not exceed one (1) for each
five hundred (500) square feet.of property; provided that no
roosters over the age of six (6) months shall be kept. The
number of young chickens, other fowl, and/or rabbits (under the
age of six (6) months) allowed on the property at any one time
shall not exceed three (3) times the allowable. number of chickens,
other fowl, and/or rabbits over the age of six (6) months.
c. The number of colonies of bees allowed on a lot shall be
limited to one colony for each one thousand (1,000) square feet .
of lot area.
d. Animal runs or barns, chicken or other fowl pens, and
colonies of bees shall be located on the.rear half of.the property,
but not closer than seventy (70) feet from the front property line
nor closer than fifty (50) feet from any residence..
e. Animals, chickens, and/or other fowl shall be properly caged
or housed, and proper sanitation shall be maintained at all times.
v :7
All animal or poultry food shall be stored in metal orother
rodent-proof receptacles.
e.
12. When an RA district is reclassified to another district as here-
inafter listed, all those land. uses granted under Section V., A. 11., a.
through e. (above), shall be completely discontinued within a period of
six (6) months from the date of reclassification.
13. Transitional use. Transitional uses shall be permitted in the
RA zone.where the side of a lot abuts upon a commercial or industrial
zone; provided that such transitional use does not extend more than sixty-_'.
five (65) feet from the boundary of the less restricted zone which it
adjoins as.follows:
a. Two-family dwellings with the same. area requirements as
the,R-2 zone.
b. Home occupation such as dressmaker, or lawyer, notary
public, public accountant, artist,.teacher, musician, principal
office of a physician or dentist, or the practice of any art or.
craft of a'nature to be conveniently and unobtrusively pursued
in a family dwelling; providing the residential character of
B. PARKING SPACE REQUIRED
There shall be.at..least one permanently reserved parking space,
or a private garage on the.same lot, or attached to or made a part
of the main building. Such parking space shall be not less than
.eight (8) feet wide and eighteen (18) feet long. The parking space
or garage shall be provided at the time of the erection of the plain
building, and it shall have adequate provisions for ingress and
egress 'by standard size, automobiles.
C. SIGNS
Signs and name plates may be installed as follows:
1. One (1) name plate not exceeding one and one-half (10
square feet in-area for each dwelling unit, indicating.the name of
the occupant, or the occupation in the case of A.,13.,b. (above).
11 .2. One (1) sign not exceeding twelve (12) square feet in area
for buildings other than dwellings.
3. One-(1) sign not exceeding six (6) square feet appertaining
to,the sale or rent of property; provided that such sign shall be
attached to and parallel with the front wall of the building.
4. One (1)-sign not exceeding eighteen (18) square feet in area
will be allowed on a tract of land or subdivision advertising the
sale of the property.
No name plates or advertising signs of any other character shall
be permitted. f
D. HEIGHT
t
No building or structure nor the enlargement of any building
or structure shall be hereafter erected to exceed two and one-half
(22).stories or more than thirty-five (35) feet in height, except
hospitals, public schools, or churches, which may be increased in
height to three (3) stories or forty-five (45) feet. Single-family
dwellings may be increased to three (3) stories or forty-five (45)
feet; provided the side yards are increased to.twenty (20) percent
of the lot width but not necessarily greater than twenty (20) feet.
In no case, however,'shall the side yard for three (3) story dwell-
ings be less than twelve (12)-feet.
E. AREA
1. Size of lot. Residential lots shall have a minimum average
width of sixty 0 feet, and the minimum lot area per dwelling
shall be six thousand (6,000) square feet, except that where a lot
has an average width of less than sixty (60) feet and an area of less
than six thousand (63000) square feet at the time this Ordinance
became effective, such lot may be occupied by any use permitted in
this section.
-10-
_ d
i
r
2. Percent of coverage. The main building and accessory buildings
located on any building site or lot shall not cover in excess of thirty
.
(30) percent.of the lot.area.
'
F. BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
1. Front Yard. Front yards shall not be less than fifteen (15)
feet deep nor less than the depth provided under Section )VI, F.,l.,c. :
and Section %%V. A garage attached to or made a part of the main
building with the entrance on the front of the property shall have ai
set-back from the front property line of not less than twenty'(20) feet.
2. Side 'yard. On interior lots and the interior side of corner
lots there shall be a side yard on each side of the main building of
not less than three (3) feet. Accessory buildings located less than
seventy (70) feet from the front property line shall conform to the
side yard requirements. On corner building sites no main building
shall be closer than ten.(10) feet to the exterior side line and no
accessory building closer than twenty
(20) feet thereto or as may be
_
established by Section M.
3. Rear Yard. There shall be a rear yard of not less than twenty-
five (25) percent of the lot depth, but such rear yard need not exceed
thirty (30) feet for interior lots near twenty (20) feet for corner lots.
`
Accessory buildings of one (1) story or a maximum of fifteen (15) feet
41
in height may occupy not over fifty (50) percent of the required rear yard...'
.
Accessory buildings in.-'excess of-one story or in excess of fifteen (15)
~ '
feet in height, and built seventy _(70) feet or more from the front
property line shall have a setback_from the side and rear property lines
of not less than twenty (20) percent of the lot width but not necessarily:
more than twenty (20) feet. A garage constructed with the entrance on
the alley shall have.a'minimutn setback of fourteen ,(l4).feet from"the
alley center line.
G. VISION CLEARANCE
1. Vision clearance on corner lots:.shall be _a minimum of twenty
(20) feet.
2. Vision clearance on alley-street intersections shall be a. minimum
of seven and one-half (72) feet.
SECTION V1. R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT -
The following regulations shall apply.to.R-1 Single-.Family Residential
Dist
rict;
A . USE
o_..
No building, structure;-.or land shall be used and no building or _
structure shall be hereafter.erected, strueturally`altered.,dnlarged,'or..
maintained except for the following
uses.
.
,