02/15/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

l Mr. Lo~g indicated the staff monitor the developments in the agreement and inform Council if there is any deviation that would not be acceptable to the City. - Mr. Obie wondered if funds should be allocated to provide monitoring to allow good standards and useful information for the City during the next season. Assistant Manager said it might be useful to wait until the agreement has been developed with DEQ and EPA. Staff did not feel it appropriate to undertake that financial burden at this time. Adequate and critical monitoring throughout the entire metro area should be done, not just in Eugene. III. Panhandle Policy: Procedures for Review Manager's memo dated February 9, Planning Department memo dated January 10, and Willakenzie Neighborhood Association letter dated November 23, 1977 distributed to Council. Manager said Council should address the procedures it wishes to take for review of panhandle policy. The memo outlines some suggestions that might be followed. He suggested a tour of panhandle lots to view examples. The question would then became one of whether or not Council should hold a hearing, refer the matter to the Planning Commission, or possibly await a report from the Joint Housing Com- mittee which is considering many approaches to meeting the goals of com- pact urban growth and density. The Planning Commission schedule would allow a possible discussion date in April. The Joint Housing Committee report may not be forthcoming for some time. Mr. Obie said JHC was trying to review the process of how to develop higher density relative to the City's goals. The Panhandle Policy is only one on a list of perhaps 15 ~ items. His subjective feeling was that City Council would not receive any recommendation from JHC on the panhandle policy. He also remembered Council had referred the matter back to the Planning Commission on two different occasions with no changes made. He felt if Council wanted to take some actions on the issue, it would either have to do so by directive to the Plannin~ Commission or by preparing its own ordinance. Mr. Williams said this is an issue that is unsolvable. In looking at the future 25 years, he noted it may be necessary for people to be closer to places of employment and services (due to gas and energy shortages). Also, there was some concern of increasing the utilization of land. Further, he said it seemed no one wanted the Panhandle Lot Policy in his own neighborhood. If Council wished to make some change in the policy, it should really consider the issue of looking 25 years ahead. In that light, he felt Council had no choice but to continue its panhandle po 1 i cy . Hr. Obie wondered if Council wanted either to listen a great deal more or to change the policy. He had experienced "25 years down the road" in L.A. recently. He noted panhandles would not be any more attractive than subdivisions that are 30 miles out of the city. Relative to energy conservation, he felt the panhandle policy was providing one form, by proper planning and grouping of housing, employment, and services. e 2/15178--4 105