My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3: Action - Minor Land Use Code Amendments
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2005
>
CC Agenda - 11/28/05 Mtg
>
Item 3: Action - Minor Land Use Code Amendments
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:42:21 PM
Creation date
11/22/2005 1:22:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
11/28/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
91
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
<br />2 - 9.05000 - Curved lot definition. Changing definition could allow new development <br />opportunities. <br /> <br />3 - 9.0500 - Sites cross streets. Does reducing number of sites mean a drop in application <br />fees? When do certain site-specific issues become diluted in larger applications? What <br />else changes? May not be minor. <br /> <br />4 - 9.05000 - Seems minor. <br /> <br />5 - 9.05000 - Seems minor. <br /> <br />6 - 9.0500 - Changing lot width definition will allow additional lots to be developed <br />which would otherwise not be allowed. The implications of additional scattershot infill, <br />when our established neighborhoods are already suffering badly under infill without <br />design standards, will cause negative consequences that should be quantified before <br />approval, and which the community should have a real chance to weigh in on. Not <br />minor. <br /> <br />7 - 9.05000 - Seems minor. <br /> <br />8 - 9.2160 - Allow RV sales w / 0 CUP in C-2 zones. This is a pure policy change, not a <br />correction. The impact of RV sales on surrounding properties is categorically different <br />from the impact of automobile or small vehicles sales because of the large bulk of <br />recreational vehicles. This could cause negative consequences that should be quantified <br />before approval, and could cause an increase in property sales or lease opportunities, <br />and thus in proerty values. Community should have a real chance to weigh in before <br />this change. <br /> <br />9 - 9.2161(1) - Mayor may not be good idea - but will allow additional and larger <br />projects. <br /> <br />10 - 9.2171 (5)(c) - Facade within setback requirements - depends how clarified... <br />11 - 0.2171(5) - Seems minor. <br />12 - 9.2171(1td) 9.8030 - New process would allow additional outdoor displays <br />13 - 9.2171(15)(e) - Seems minor. <br /> <br />14 - 9.2171(15)e - Exempt loading dock wall from windows - effectively seems to be a <br />huge policy change with potentially huge impact! <br /> <br />15 - 9.2180, etc. -Undetermined impact <br /> <br />16 - 9.2450(table) - Seems minor. (correction) ? <br /> <br />*17 - 9.2450(table) - Allow trucking terminals outright - should table just be changed, or <br />does existing table indicate the true intent? How did the public know during LUCU <br /> <br />Friend of Eugene · 10/31/05 · Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.