|
<br />Issues. Additionally, his motion would not preclude balconies on the back of houses, or in the first 60
<br />feet.
<br />
<br />Mr. Lowe said it was important to note that CAFHN submitted a letter in which it agreed with the
<br />standards proposed and was not seeking additional privacy provisions. This was a negotiated outcome
<br />between CAFI-IN and PDD staff
<br />
<br />N.....'
<br />
<br />In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Lowe said secon~.:~6t':~~ico~t~l.::~~~e currently allowed
<br />in the code, as modified by the provisions in the draft code lang~.r,' Hes~.utiori~,:.~~t:..~ommis~ion that
<br />
<br />v///.'.'.'.v. ....,.;.:;.:;:. ....................,.,.,.", ~,'-
<br />it was running risks in conducting quick analyses on such a compli.j5i.~~#e: '''::;;??:;:;:;~i':::;::.:,~-.;~~
<br />
<br />Mr. Nystrom said there were allowances in the code for encroachments, aR~~~i,R~d th~t some level of
<br />encroachment would be allowed, although it needed to the overall ~fi~i1~~C
<br />
<br />.'-".,...;-.........+.+
<br />.....;..............;,
<br />
<br />
<br />interior yard setback.
<br />
<br />Mr. Flock said balconies were not an expressly
<br />
<br />The mq!~~!fEfailed, 1:4,
<br />missi9%~ij:i~f:tcan, Hledik,
<br />
<br />Belcher voting in favor, and com-
<br />and Lawless voting in opposition.
<br />
<br />.'.'...'.'.'.'.-.-.-.-...-.;.;.;.;.;.;.,?,.,.../.........-,
<br />''<''-''-'-';';';';';';';-;-;-......-,.....,-....,".'>',
<br />
<br />"",';',',.,..',y,',>,",
<br />
<br />V,V,',',V,',,,,,v.v...,,v.'.
<br />
<br />Mr. Belcher si.tj;d;CAFHN raised^tli~2:QQ~t that th~:~~~p~sed ordinance would allow uses not currently
<br />allowed;..~~~~sked how Ballot Me~i~~:7 woul&~Pply. Ms. Jerome explained the balance and net
<br />effect-^~w8ij'taj~:taken into considerati&h:::[h a determination.
<br />';<<<<,-<v.,-<v.','.','. ','.'.V.V"
<br />.,.~<v,'-<'-<'-<"..~"........ >>;.;.;<;.;.
<br /><-<.,.,'-<".'-<'-<v.......v. ..,....v;.
<br />.<':':.:-:..~-:.'-<'-<v.v.oo
<br />.~<':-,/.'~"j~.~'-<v.VA
<br />y..".,:'~<<.:.<..?'.'.>...
<br />
<br />In response to M~5ij~l~l~[:~. Mr. ~#om stated the prohibition of development in alleys as well as other
<br />provisions could poss15J:~;~~~~}~gZVed if the new code was adopted.
<br />
<br />Mr. Lowe explained that the map distributed at the beginning of the meeting identified commercial
<br />properties, including the property represented by Jim Spickerman who submitted testimony at the public
<br />hearing as well as other commercial properties that had the same characteristics. Staff recommended tbat
<br />the properties identified on the map be removed from the C~2 zone. He added that the figures on the
<br />maps were under revision, and asked that the Planning Commission give some indication of its support
<br />for or arguments against adoption of the staff recommendation on the map as part of its recommendation
<br />
<br />MINUTES ~ Eugene Planning Commission
<br />Regular Meeting
<br />
<br />September 26, 2005
<br />
<br />Page 14
<br />
<br />
|