01/23/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

would be increased by ten round trips a day. There was concern that if the Winter lot were panhandled, some 13 other lots could ~ be at some time in the future. It was pointed out that accidents .." at the corner of Oakway Road and Sandy Drive had greatly increased in the past year. Other objections were that the Sandy Drive neighborhood, and others like it, were an effective border to the City core. The neighborhood was described as a good buffer for noise, transient populations, crime pockets, and highway mazes. The neighborhood was described as an area of high holding power for the middle-income person. It was stated there were still 1,000 acres of land in Eugene available for residential buildings. The Willakenzie Neighborhood Association and other individuals requested City Council review its panhandle policy. James Winter, 2170 Bedford Way, spoke in favor of his request for a minor partition on Sandy Drive. He understood the feelings of those opposed to his request and that the issue was emotional. He had always tried to be a good neighbor, citing the fact that he had done a quality remodeling job on the house he owned on Sandy Drive. He had informed those who lived on Sandy Drive and the Wil1akenzie Neighborhood Association of his intent to file for a panhandle permit before he had filed. His plans for the lot would be in line with the 1990 Plan and 1974 Community Goals because they would help reduce urban sprawl and aid the compact growth pOlicy. He said there was a need for more middle-priced homes and City reports found there to be little traffic on Sandy Drive. He questioned if enough homes could ... be built on the street, even if others subdivided, to ever create a ,.., traffic hazard. He presented slides of the Sandy Drive area, showing that other lots in the vicinity had been partitioned in the past. The panhandle policy was achieving its intended goal which was to allow for compact growth within the City limits. He did not think the opposition had shown any hardship which would be created for them if he were granted his request. Mr. Saul said two or three issues had been raised which he wished to address. First, the appeal had been partially based on traffic questions. He said the City Code, as'it referred to this issue, was based on standards not of whether traffic would be increased, but whether it would be untenable. He said even if all lots on the street which could be were subdivided, this would only mean an in- crease of 100 to 150 trips a day, which was immeasurable by City planning standards. Secondly, he said the problem of overcrowding land had been raised, but that the proposed panhandle lots would both be over 9,000 square feet, which was more than the minimum lot size specified for the area. Finally, he said in the past four to five years, many panhandles had been approved, and there was no documentation that this had adversely affected the livability of any area. Mr. Obie asked if there were curb gutters or sidewalks on the street; Mr. Saul replied there were not. Ms. Smith questioned where the ~ City stood in terms of review of panhandling. City Manager said the ~ 1/23/78--2 ~I