My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3: Minor Code Amendments and Land Use Regulations
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2008
>
CC Agenda - 08/11/08 Meeting
>
Item 3: Minor Code Amendments and Land Use Regulations
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:43:33 PM
Creation date
8/8/2008 10:40:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
8/11/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
c. Fractions of .75 or above. <br />In all other circumstances the planning director shall round <br />down to the previous whole number. <br />4. At the request of the developer, the acreage described in 1., above, <br />also may exclude natural or historic resources. For purposes of this <br />section, natural resources include those designated for protection in <br />an adopted plan and the area within natural resources protection or <br />conservation setbacks that have been applied to the development <br />site. For purposes of this section, historic resources include historic <br />property and resources identified in an official local inventory as <br />“primary” or “secondary.” It may also include additional natural or <br /> <br />historic resources upon approval of the planning director.” <br /> <br />Request Motion <br />(MiCAP Topic #14: Provide I move to amend EC 9.7007(1)(a) at Section 19 of Ordinance A to provide: <br />for Early Neighbor and <br />Neighborhood Input into “Type II: 3-lot partitions, tentative subdivisions and tentative cluster subdivisions;” <br />Development Process) <br /> <br />Change the developments for <br />which notice and a <br />neighborhood meeting are <br />required from those that <br />would result in ‘over 10 lots’ <br />to those that would result in <br />‘3 or more lots.’ <br /> <br />Proposed by Councilor Zelenka <br />Request Motion <br />(MiCAP Topic #16: I move to direct the City Manager to refer to the Infill Compatibility Standards <br />Eliminate Site Review project or to the Planning Commission the issues of whether the 18 month expiration <br />Requirements for Projects period for PUDs is too long and whether the city is authorizing too many time <br />with Approved Planned Unit extensions of that expiration period. <br />Development) <br /> <br />Request additional review of <br />whether there is too much <br />time passage between <br />approval of a PUD and its <br />development. <br /> <br />Proposed by Councilor Zelenka <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.