Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Childs confirmed that all uses in all zones, <br />including commercial and industrial uses, had front-yard setbacks. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr questioned the cost of the requirement on the cost of housing. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor did not think the City could require utilities to place boxes in the backyard when the <br />system was in the street. He continued to support screening. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to amend the motion as follows: <br /> "To direct the City Manager to prohibit all above-ground utility boxes of all <br /> sizes, for services such as telephone, fiber optic, electrical, gas, and wide <br /> band digital, in required front yards, unless screened on three sides from the <br /> street." <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Ms. Bishow said she was unsure if the motion created a <br />conflict with the existing code in terms of what was allowed in easements. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer indicated that if the motion passed, staff would look at current practices in terms of <br />what occurred in the front-yard setback. He thought that technically, many citizens were in <br />noncompliance because they had already screened such boxes in the front-yard setback. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner did not support the amendment. He said it would allow the placement of all boxes of <br />all sizes in the front-yard setback with the provision of screening. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Meisner's remarks. He said while it was clear that staff needed to do <br />some further work on the details of implementation, such as consulting with the utilities, he <br />supported the spirit of the motion. Regarding Mr. Farr's remarks about the impact on the cost of <br />housing, he suggested that the cost would be largely to the service provider and could impact <br />residents through increases in the price of the services provided. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that the proliferation of providers competing with new technology and <br />equipment made it difficult to plan for the location of services. She thought the City would see <br />more such boxes because of more competition and the convergence of technologies. She <br />wanted the City to do something to address the problem now as delay would result in the <br />installation of more boxes. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not support the amendment. She appreciated Ms. Nathanson's motion and <br />agreed that the number of boxes would proliferate. She would accept a motion that indicated in <br />the absence of other options, location in the front-yard setback could be accepted with screening. <br />In new development she did not think the location of such boxes should be an issue. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Ms. Nathanson clarified that her concern was about <br />new providers coming into the community and installing new equipment. Mr. Pap8 expressed <br />concern that existing developments would have a difficult time ensuring that the equipment was <br />located out of the front-yard setback for lack of room. Ms. Nathanson agreed, saying for that <br />reason she supported Mr. Rayor's amendment. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Ms. Bishow confirmed that the service providers had <br />"free rein" to install boxes where they wished. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 30, 2000 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />