My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 10/08/01 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2001
>
CC Minutes - 10/08/01 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:31:46 AM
Creation date
8/1/2005 1:52:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/1/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
View images
View plain text
Brad Stangeland, 285 Lawrence, commented that there were other professionals besides certified <br />landscape architects that could be trusted to approve landscaping plans. <br /> <br />Douglass Moorehead, 1460 Flintridge Street, commented that if the new code language was not <br />amended, development would move to outside the city limits and builders within the City would be <br />put out of business. He urged the council to return to the old code language. He opined that the <br />new code language was "over regulation" and "foolish." <br /> <br />Robin Hostick, 2150 Adams Street, maintained that allowing only licensed landscaped architects <br />to plan and review landscape designs would maintain public health, safety, and welfare. <br /> <br />Jou Belcher, 1190 West 17th Avenue, Chair of the Eugene Planning Commission, made himself <br />available to answer questions from the council during its deliberations. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Councilor Farr regarding the reasoning behind the 18-foot <br />maximum width for driveways, Ms. Bishow said that the primary reasoning was to improve <br />neighborhood livability and to eliminate the amount of front yard setback area that was devoted to <br />the driveway. She noted that there was no prohibition on the size of the garage or the total <br />number of cars that could be parked off street. <br /> <br />Councilor Farr commented that his idea of streetscaping did not have cars lined up along the street <br />and houses without enough parking to have a guest park. He added that an 18-foot driveway did <br />not allow enough room for cars to park side-by-side and said that to enable two cars to park in a <br />driveway, it would have to be extended in length which would add impervious surface and affect <br />the 50 percent maximum lot coverage rule. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow said that staff had done further analysis on the driveway width and had agreed that <br />there was an unintended consequence of adding to impervious surface area of a home. She <br />acknowledged that the Planning Commission recommendation of a 27-foot maximum would <br />accommodate the straight drive-in entrance and exit of a two-car garage. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Councilor Farr regarding the previous code language limitations, <br />Ms. Bishow said that the previous code allowed for 50 percent of the front yard setback to be <br />landscaped and the rest was allowed to be driveway. She noted that staff had recommended using <br />the old code language until more analysis could be done. She said that this could be accomplished <br />by a motion to amend Section 28 of the ordinance to modify subsection (7)(a)(2) by deleting the <br />last two sentences. <br /> <br />Councilor Farr raised concern that a maximum width of 18 feet would cause complications with <br />disabled people who had needs for extra space for vehicle access. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 2001 Page 5 <br /> Regular Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
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).