Item 3: Action - Minor Land Use Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

that this was an outright permitted use? 18 - 9.2683{2) - Clarify non-need for duplicate review. Minor. *19 - 9.2741 - Allow greater height of some buildings which straddle zones. Impact of change should be explained for public process. 21 - 9.2761(6) - Change from 'shall' to 'may'. Implications dubious. 23 - Policy change which FoE approves of, because of current lack of infill design standards to provide density with quality. *24 - 9.2761(5){d) - Rather than allow larger lot sizes for natural resource protection, subdivisions and PUDs should create separate conservation area lots. Preferring separate lots for conservation areas at the time of subdivision is current practice in the city, as applied by the planning department under the current code, as it is believed to better protection. Changing this code provision is not minor, and by reducing the available tools for natural resource protection, would cause negative consequences that should be quantified before approval, and which the community should have a real chance to weigh in on. 25 - 9.2761{6) - Seems minor. 26 - 9.2775(1) - Screening of flag lots. Instead of deleting important language on screening from the purpose statement, specific provisions for screening, accidentally left out of the code, should now be added. 27 - 9.2795 - Solar setback changes. The proposed change appears to be wrong, technically, based on its own explanation. Buildings on a steep south-facing slope cast short shadows. Buildings on a steep north-facing slope cast very long shadows. 29 - 9.4730(3), 9.4830(2,b) - We should maintain local site review because state and federal requirements could change. A sweeping federal case that could undo national protections is in fact currently before the US Supreme Court. If local wetland protections requirements are indeed weaker, then they should be strengthened, not dropped. 30 - 9.5250(1){b) - Clarification which is in itself unclear prevents reasonable public involvement. 31- 9.5350 - Consider impacts of standards in industrial zones. 32 - 9.5350 - Appears to be minor. 33 - 9.5500{8){a) - Undetermined impact. *34 - 9.5S00(9)(a)S, 9.5S00(9)(c)2 - Significant multifamily housing quality issue: Reduction in width of minimum open space down to only 15' is not trivial. Maybe Friend of Eugene · 10/31/05 · Page 4