Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
approximately one year. He added that the council should also wait until it has had a chance to <br />discuss the TransPlan update and fold that discussion into the transportation SDC. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar pointed out that there were basically two policy positions: 1) staff's <br />recommendation; and, 2) his and Ms. Nathanson's position that everyone be responsible for <br />paying the equivalent cost of actual residential access to their property. He agreed that changes <br />should be postponed until after the committee work has been completed but asked that the <br />second proposal (above) be put out for public comment. Mr. Tollenaar responded to the <br />questions posed in the item summary as follows: 1) yes; 2) yes; 3) actual, potential access is <br />meaningless (Mr. Lyle questioned applying this to large lots or vacant parcels. Mr. Tollenaar said <br />vacant and partially developed lots should be treated the same--pay for actual access or <br />presume they have access if vacant.); 5) some of the papers presented by the Lane Council of <br />Governments (LCOG) and others recommend a per-unit approach--an approach that should be <br />analyzed; and 6) the new policies should apply also to new and vacant or partially developed <br />sites. Mr. Tollenaar referred the council to page 39, noting that corner lots would be assessable <br />for one street. He questioned that double frontage development would be a con, as listed in the <br />agenda summary for the primary access approach. Mr. Lyle explained that City planners were <br />looking of ways to create more connection to the street system. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor was opposed to postponing implementation for another year and said the inequities <br />should be corrected as soon as possible. She said if "actual" in question 3 referred to access <br />that touched the street, the answer should be "potential." With regard to double frontage, Ms. <br />Taylor wondered if that might be disallowed through the permitting process. Mr. Lyle responded <br />that it could in the Land Use Code Update. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said in general he agreed with Mr. Tollenaar's analysis and shared Ms. Taylor's <br />concern with postponing implementation. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey noted that even if the process were expedited, it would preclude large projects for <br />next year. <br /> <br />Mr. Lyle summarized the discussion and noted that at least six councilors seem to be supportive <br />of the direct access policy approach and, in general, agreed with Mr. Tollenaar's responses to the <br />questions posed in the summary. He said he was unsure if the support was sustainable into the <br />next council and looked forward to addressing it, given the input today and including public <br />comment through the Rates Advisory Committee and other appropriate outreach. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said he was very interested in the positions of the other jurisdictions. Mr. Lyle <br />confirmed that the Lane County Board of Commissioners had veto power over parcels within its <br />jurisdiction. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said the information should make clear that access referred access "from and to." <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar said the policy needed an effective date that did not affect current projects--after the <br />1999 construction season. The council concurred. <br /> <br />The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 9, 1998 Page 6 <br /> 5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />