02/26/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~-'e Mr. Haws was against the motion. He was not opposed to the intent of the ordinance regarding infilling of the city. But he felt it would be easier if it was done by a step-by-step basis. He felt changing the requirement from 18,000 to 16,000 square feet would be acting too quickly. Mr. Delay said nothing had been demonstrated to Council that indicated that lot sizes had anything to do with the real problems. He said that lot sizes only restrict the number of lots that can be panhandled. The main concerns from the citizens had to do with activities that the City does not control with any other housing, i.e., design review, paving, and screening. The amendment to the motion would simply increase the opportunities for infilling. In response to a question from Ms. Smith. Mr. Saul said the Committee did consider the variety of figures for square footage from 12,000 to 26,000. The ultimate Committee recommendation recognized the limita- tions when trying to specify a blanket figure. Once it was decided to set a lot-size standard, the Committee simply chose 18,000 square feet in an attempt to recognize the restraints imposed by existing housing. Ms. Smith opposed the amendment, but noted it important it to update the panhandle pOlicy. She noted the Committee had been formed and had given a great deal of consideration to this and felt the Council should support the Committee's recommendation. .- Vote was taken on the amendment to the motion, which carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Smith and Haws voting no. Vote was taken on the main motion which carried unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number on 1 y . Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18346. C.B. 1839--Regarding special assessments; amending Section 7.180 of the Eugene Code, 1971; 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. Motion carried unanimously, an the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. . 2/26/79--15 120 /