Laserfiche WebLink
<br />minimum square footage should be increased to match instead. <br /> <br />35,36,37 - Seems minor. <br /> <br />38 - Seems minor.. But, why does this need to be specified? <br />39, 40, 41 - Seems minor. <br /> <br />42 - Dropped from list? <br /> <br />43 - Seems minor. <br /> <br />44 - 9.6420(3)(f)(1) - What is wrong with a landscape strip "wedged" between two <br />buildings? Esp. if some of such buildings are required to have ground floor windows <br />there? There are many potential benefits to such landscaping strips, and dropping <br />them summarily is an un warranted policy. <br /> <br />45 - 9.6610(1) - Seems minor. <br /> <br />46 - 9.6610(1) - Seems minor. <br /> <br />47 - 9.6610(1), 9.6615 - Impact undetermined. <br /> <br />48, 49, 50 - Seems minor. <br /> <br />51 - Seems minor. signs should be defined to determine range of staff discretion. <br />52 - 9.6709 - Flood standards. Automatically matching federal changes is not <br />automatically minor. <br /> <br />53 - 9.6730(4) - Adjustment of pedestrian circulation. <br /> <br />54 - 9.6745 - Allows intrusions into setbacks. <br /> <br />57 - 9.6810(4) - Block lengths greater than 600 feet. Are standards for approving <br />exemptions clear and appropriate? <br /> <br />58 - 9.6815 - More flexible street connectivity standards. Impact undetermined. <br /> <br />59 - 9.6820 - Changes cul-de-sac requirements. Are clarifications dear and appropriate? <br />60 - Consistent, but consistent how? <br /> <br />61 - 9.6885 - Substitute LA for arbors. Policy change. Impact undetermined. <br />62 - 9.7020 - Seems minor. <br /> <br />63 - 9.7020 - Seems minor. <br /> <br />Friend of Eugene · 10131/05 · Page 5 <br />