02/26/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e of the Code do not come into playas those are different standards. He noted a problem in that panhandle lots are already a modification of normal frontage requirements under the Code. These standards have always been reviewed as minimum ones to be met to qualify for modification. He noted the City normally does not grant a modifi- cation to a modification. Mr. Delay wondered if information were available regarding expanding subdivisions and number of lots that might be divided. Mr. Saul said he did do a ramdom sample of 11 panhandle lot applications submitted in 1977-78. By increasing the access width from 15 to 20 feet, it would have eliminated two of the 11; by increasing from 15 to 25 feet, six of the 11 would be eliminated; increasing from 15 foot to 30 feet, eight of the 11 would have been eliminated. C.B. 1838--Concerning panhandle lots; amending Sections 9.005 and 9.010 of the Eugene Code, 1971; adding Sections 9.095 and 9.100 to that Code; and declaring an emergency, was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. e Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to amend the motion to change the access width on one lot from 20 to 15 feet, and retain paving width at 12 feet. Ms. Schue felt it unfortunate that a technicality would decrease the City's intent to increase density. Ms. Miller agreed with Mr. Kennedy's testimony in that the City has a tendency to legislate for optimum conditions on the drawing board. She noted there were other access points in the City which were very small, and people did not seem to dislike them. She felt most people did not want to live in the middle of parking and paved lots. Vote was taken on the amendment to the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Haws commended the the Committee, staff, and citizens for their work, and for the testimony given this evening. He favored panhandle lots as a good way to increase density. He felt there was one major problem that was not addressed. That involed a case where a dwelling was an established residence for quite some time. Perhaps the owner died or moved, and a developer could come in, create a panhandle lot, and then move away. He felt the problem was when are the lots going to be developed. ---- e 2/26/79--13 118