Item 2: Ordinance on Minor Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT D properties. He said that he spoke to a number of other city planners in Oregon, and that none of those cities allowed any buildings as high as currently allowed in Eugene without some sort of adequate transitioning element. Mike Russo , 1975 Potter, Eugene, speaking in support of the proposed amendments, said that his neighbors were in favor of reasonable development for both students and residents in University neighborhoods and that such development is essential for maintaining the character of the City. He said that the proposed amendments were essential for meeting the goals of the City’s Growth Management Policy No. 6. th Lauren Hulse , 1256 East 20 Avenue, Eugene, spoke regarding MCA No. 5 regarding building height transitions within the South University Neighborhood. She encouraged approval of the proposed amendment. She publicly thanked developer Dean Pickett for his efforts to encourage reasonable development within the South University Neighborhood. Bill Spurling , 1958 Potter, Eugene, spoke regarding MCA No. 5 regarding building height transitions within the South University Neighborhood. He encouraged approval of the proposed amendment, and showed a diagram of the street on which his property is located in order to graphically demonstrate how current building codes might adversely affect his property. Joshua Welch , 1995 Grant Street, Eugene, spoke regarding MCA No. 1 regarding the number of dogs allowed by residents within City limits. He encouraged approval of the proposed amendment, and cited the closing of the Lane County Animal Shelter and his experiences with the Humane Society as his reasons for his support. He further encouraged the Planning Commission to raise the limit for the number of dogs allowed to at least four or five. Lydia Deane , 505 Sweet Gum Lane, Eugene, spoke regarding the proposed fence height changes as described in MCA No. 2. She said that neither the current Code nor the proposed revisions fully addressed her concerns regarding fence heights. She said that the nature of public versus private space, as well as issues regarding urban infill requirements and how codes alone cannot dictate the taste of a neighborhood should be considered in determining how fence heights should be properly regulated within the City. David K. Calderwood , 28104 Spencer Creek Road, Eugene, spoke regarding MCA No. 1 regarding the number of dogs allowed by residents within City limits. He encouraged approval of MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 21, 2008 Page 4