Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />ATTACHMENT D <br />Mr. Duncan asked for clarification from the staff regarding the process by which the proposed <br />minor code amendments had been developed by staff. He requested a copy of any policy or <br />guideline documents that had been used to develop the minor code amendments. <br />Mr. Carroll, with regard to MCA No. 7, asked the staff for an analysis of the original parking <br />suggestions, specifically how they were less than what was currently proposed, that were submitted <br />to staff by the various community organizations that provided input to staff in developing the minor <br />code amendments. <br />Mr. Hledik, with regard to MCA No. 7, specifically requested an analysis of Mr. Baker’s original <br />community recommendation, as well as an analysis of any other similar recommendations used in <br />development of the minor code amendment. He also asked the staff for specific figures on the <br />current number of existing parking spaces within the University neighborhood areas. <br />Mr. Carroll, with regard to MCA No. 11, said that he was confused as to how the diagram that staff <br />had submitted pertained to the language of the proposed amendment. He asked the staff for <br />concrete examples of how the widths of streets versus alleys were determined within City limits, as <br />well as how a developer might view the advantages or disadvantages in considering street or alley <br />access with regard to specific lots. <br />Mr. Carroll, with regard to MCA No. 8, asked the staff to clarify what the current stormwater <br />management requirements are, as well as how those requirements come into play with respect to <br />development. Mr. Hledik seconded Mr. Carroll’s request to staff for this information. <br />Mr. McCown asked the staff to more closely examine the proposed MCA Nos. 5, 7 and 8 in order <br />to definitively determine whether they were in fact minor or not. <br />Mr. Lawless, with regard to the minor code amendments involving fence heights, asked staff to <br />clarify the Code language and provide a diagram showing a duplex layout with the proposed fence <br />amendment. <br />Mr. Hledik, with regard to the minor code amendments involving fence heights, asked staff to <br />ensure that the proposed amendment addressed all of the concerns raised during the public hearing. <br />Mr. Lawless, with regard to MCA No. 5, asked the staff to clarify the history of zoning, building <br />height and density standards within the University neighborhood area. <br />MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 21, 2008 Page 11 <br /> <br />