Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/26/1979 Meeting . M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL February 26, 1979 Adjourned meeting from February 21, 1979, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 7:30 p.m., Council Chamber, with the fOllowing Councilors present: Jack Delay, Betty Smith, Eric Haws, Scott Lieual1en, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Councilors D. W. Hamel and Brian Obie were absent. I. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Dennis Murphy, Medical Services, Inc., recognized the following persons for their CPR assistance for Councilor Bill Hamel at the January 17, Council meeting. Mike Hamel, son of Councilor Hamel, and Bill Leonard, MSI, assisted in the presentations. Those receiving awards were: Joyce Benjamin, Carol Baker, Greg Page, John Janzen, Pam Louviere, and Lori Corey. Mr. Murphy emphasized the importance of citizens having CPR training. Mayor Keller, on behalf of Councilor Hamel, thanked those who received awards. II. 1980 OLYMPIC TRIALS e Mayor Keller announced the recent decision that Eugene would be the site of the 1980 Olympic Field and Track Trials. He was very proud of the Oregon Track Club, and especially commended Bill Rau and Jim Putney who made the presentation on behalf of Eugene. He noted Eugene indeed was lithe jogging capital" of the world. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Community Development Block Grant Application for FY 79-80-- Materials Distributed Manager noted the Council had toured areas where Block Grant funds have been used. This is the City's fifth year of participation in the program, and it expects to receive $1.212 million. The Community Development Committee held a public hearing February 15, 1979, and is recommending approva1 of the application as submitted to Council. Paula Ross, HCC, noted this application was primarily for physical development in neighborhoods, with some social service funding. The intent of the 1974 Housing and Community Development Act is to aid in the elimination and prevention of urban blight and to provide funds for activities which primarily benefit low- and moderate- income people. With that objective in mind, the Committee adopted a geographic distribution of funds that concentrates activities in those parts of the city with the greatest needs. The geographic e 2/26/79--1 106 distribution is combined with the neighborhood improvement program concept in which a program is designed to address the major needs of an identified area. Intensive planning occurs in these areas, . ranging from land use to building and site conditions, to trans- portation needs, and neighborhood design elements. The NIP schedule is as follows: Westside NIP, FY 75-76 through 77-78; Whiteaker NIP, 77-78 through 79-80; West University NIP, 79-80 through 81-82. The summary of how the money will be allocated was described as follows: Rehabilitation loans, HCC General and Rehab administration, Planning Department administration, Finance administration, Whiteaker NIP, West University NIP, individually funded activities, and a contingency fund. She noted at the CDC hearing, the following changes were made: $20,000 recommended for the Handicapped Commission's request for removal of architectural barriers for the physically handicapped was reduced to $14,500. The additional $5,500 will be allocated, with $3,000 to Fairmount Neighbors for kiosks; and $2,500 to SUNA for street trees. The Whiteaker NIP has a primary emphasis on economic development, which is a rather new program. There was considerable time spent and much discussion before the CDC with the staff and neighborhood leaders. The allocation for Whiteaker NIP was made with the following provisions: That all 11 elements be submitted with the understanding that CDC expects the Whiteaker neighbor- hood group and staff to work out details of structure and controls related to investment projects and program implementation before any funds or Elements 2, 3, 4, and 5 are released or expended. She noted other items for action requested this evening were: The Urban Renewal Project, which has already been approved and funds allocated. However, each year's funding request must be approved in conjunction with the Block Grant Application. Also included was the schedule for the Housing Assistance Plan, which must accompany each year1s Block Grant. It does not require action at this time. Ms. Ross noted it would come before Council in April, with the public hearing before the Joint Housing Committee in March. She reviewed the application as follows: Section 7062 is a descrip- tion of Eugene; Section 7063 a description of housing, economic development, and physical improvement needs of the City; Section 7064 includes how the City intends to address the needs in the next three years; Section 7065 is a list of projects intended for funding 1979-80 and how the City will meet those needs during the next fiscal year; Section 7066 is a project summary; and Section 7067, a cost summa ry . - Mr. Delay found working on this Committee to be a very rewarding experience. He noted the responsiveness to neighborhood groups and their needs. He has seen increasing responsibility on the part of neighborhoods in working to solve some of their own problems. He noted some projects were not funded, and hoped that some day the City will be able to do more about community development in more transitional neighborhoods. e 2/26/79--2 101 . Ms. Miller noted in the SUNA request, funds had been requested for a project at 19th and Agate. The contingency was that the merchants fund the project. She stated, as a merchant in that area, and being one of those persons partly affected, she did not feel she had a conflict of interest for this item. - Public hearing was opened. Those speaking in favor of the Block Grant were as follows: Cathy Rapp, 956-1/2 West 4th, President Whiteaker Community Council, noted the Whiteaker NIP 79-80 package represented considerable time and effort on the part of the neighborhood people. She said this program would continue and expand some of the past projects for the Whiteaker neighborhood, as mentioned in the Whiteaker Refinement Plan. Such projects included child care, cooperative housing, and economic development. She believed the proposal had wide neighborhood support and a dedicated commitment from the Whiteaker Community Council. Cathy Burke, 92 North Polk, hoped to continue the child-care program for the community. She said there was a great need in that area ' because of the large number of single families. Also, she mentioned a need to improve the arts program and development of a Wh;teaker- based performing arts program for area residents. The request would continue architectural restoration in the neighborhood, continue appropriate technology demonstration project, and complete the commu- nity center by making it handicapped accessible. Jim McCoy, 1190 West 5th, was a member of the Whiteaker staff working on the economic development proposal. He noted the proposal was a result of a housing cooperative feasibility study and research regarding formation of a community development corporation. The result of the research and planning were the NIP economic development component in this block grant. The overall general strategy will be to form a mutual partnership organization to work with residents, business people, and others in the neighborhood. He noted the group would be seeking help from City staff and the State Housing Authority regarding the housing component. For implementation of this program, he said the Small Business Association program could increase the dollars for program implementation. He hoped this funding would help provide leverage to allow the community to develop this economic program. Gary Spivak, 1350 Bailey, said a possible economic development project could be to purchase a building, remodel it, and use it to provide adequate facilities for a neighborhood business that might otherwise leave the neighborhood. Side benefits would be improvement of the building itself, better opportunities for local employment, and adding to the existing neighborhood business. He felt this program would tie in very closely with economic development and planning for the entire city. - 2/26/79--3 m Bill Uhlhorn, 2625 Hilyard Street, was director of the Eugene Emer- gency Housing. Presently, he is responsible for operating two facili- . ties which provide housing for emotionally and mentally disturbed adults. He noted the requested money in the grant would help add to his program. There were 1,400 to 1,600 persons in the community who need adequate low-cost housing along with supportive services. The Housing Assistance Plan presently does not address these needs, nor do the zoning codes, which presently restrict group-care facilities. He thanked the City for recognition of this need in the community. Dorothy McNair, 2207 Willona Drive, a parent, and member of the Lane County Mentally Retarded Association. She supportive alternative housing for physically handicapped, noting the only available housing now is nursing homes. She also felt there was a need for architec- turally barrier-free homes. She requested Council support the request. Tom Hubka, 1961 Agate, represented Fairmount Neighbors. The group was concerned about taking money from the handicapped, and recommended that that portion be returned to the handicapped for their architectural free-barrier project. However, the group did request that its project still be funded within the total program. He said the $3,000 would be a great help and would go a long way in the neighborhood. He noted a large number of single-family residents and the kiosks would attempt to communicate information among the residents. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testiony presented. Ms. Smith wondered if there were any way the Handicapped Commission, Fairmount Neighbors, and SUNA tree projects could all be funded. Ms. Ross replied the only place would be from the contingency fund. She noted that fund is used to cover costs and overruns of other approved projects. Mr. Delay noted the contingency fund is very small in relation to the entire allocation. He said CDC struggled with the priorities for funding. He was not sure it would be wise to use the contingency fund for these projects. He noted the dollars that would be allocated for the Handicapped Commission's project will be dollars that will have to be allocated because of Federal legisla- tion anyway. - Ms. Smith favored allocating the $5,500 to the Handicapped Commission, and considering use of contingency funds for the other two projects. Charles Kupper, HCC Director, noted there may be money left over from previous years' projects that could be used. Mr. Delay felt that would be the best option. Ms. Ross noted the present application would be submitted in April and approved.in July. She said expendi- tures will continue between now and July. It wouldn't be possible to know how much contingency fund might be left over until the end of the project year. e \Oq 2/26/79--4 e e - Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith. to approve the Community Development Block Grant Application for submittal to HUD as recommended by CDC; with reprogramming of $5,500 into the Archi- tectural Barrier Project as money becomes available from previous years' grants. Motion carried unanimously. B. Concurrent Annexation/Rezoning property located generally northeast of Dillard Road (Rodman/Shinn)(A/Z 78-14) Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission on December 12, 1978. Jim Saul, Planner, said the annexation/rezoning involves 19.8 acres. It is a portion of a larger tract in excess of 100 acres. A portion of that 100 acres is located beyond the ridgeline and would not be suitable for annexation under present policies. The remaining portion is within the urban service boundary but is extremely steep, would not be susceptible to development, and thus was excluded from this application. He noted the written findings for annexation included the City's normal standards, pertinent portions of the LCDC Administrative Rule, and Statewide Goals, which would be applicable (Nos. 5, 7, 10, 11, and 14). He noted an unusual aspect of this request in that the 19.8 acres surrounds 4.32 acres owned by Bernice Sisney. Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, staff was unable to determine whether or not Ms. Sisney favored or opposed annexation. The Planning Commission thus did recommend inclusion of her property. Subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing, the owner did contact the Planning Department and did not want annexation. Therefore Council was faced with two options: 1) Exclude the Sisney property, thus creating an island; or 2) include the property in the recommendation to the Boundary Commission. He noted if Council took the latter action, it would run the risk that the owner could petition for election and defeat the entire annexation. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff Notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Res. No. 3083--Recommending to Boundary Commission annexation of property located generally northeast of Dillard Road (Rodman/Shinn)(A/Z 78-14) was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the annexation as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 12, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto; and that the resolution be adopted. Ms. Smith moved to delete the Sisney property from the annexation. Motion died for a lack of a second. 2/26/79--5 110 In clarification, Mr. Saul said Council, under current statutes, may recommend and initiate annexation. However, if there is not a health hazard or if it is not an island area, any resident on the 4It proposed property may file a petition for an election. This would obligate the City to schedule an election and those persons living in the affected area vote as to whether or not they wished to be annexed. He said in this particular instance there would be only person, Ms. Sisney, and she in effect could defeat the entire annexa- tion. He reviewed again that his attempts to contact Ms. Sisney were unsuccessful. Only after the Planning Commission had heard the matter and had recommended annexation did he receive her objection to the annexation. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieual1en, to amend the motion to delete the Sisney property from the annexation. Vote was taken on the amendment to the motion, which carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Haws and Miller voting no. Vote was taken on the main motion, which carried unanimously. C.B. 1835--Rezoning from County RA to City R-1/PD property located generally northeast of Dillard Road (Rodman/ Shinn)(A/Z 78-14) 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 findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and ~ minutes of December 12, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto; ~ 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. Mr. Saul noted the Planning Commission recommended rezoning of only the Rodman/Shinn property, excluding Sisney's, because of legal notification deadlines. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smi th, that the bi 11 be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18343. C. Rezoning from RA to R-2 property located on west side of Oak Patch Road between 11th Avenue and 15th Avenue (Napier)(Z 78-32) Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission on December 12, 1978. Mr. Saul said the parcel involved 15,600 square feet. He reviewed the surrounding property and time of rezoning to R-2. The findings - 2/26/79--6 II' . e - for the rezoning by the Planning Commission included in the packet found the rezoning to be consistent with the General Plan appli- cable to this area and that there is a public need. If the ~roperty is rezoned, it could be developed into five residences including the present dwelling. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council ors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. C.B. 1836--Rezoning from RA to R-2 properaty located on west side of Oak Patch Road between 11th Avenue and 15th Avenue was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. . D. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 12, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto; 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, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. 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 18344. Rezoning from M-1/SR to R-1 property located on Bertelsen Road north of 18th Avenue (Bottensek)(Z 78-36) Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission on December 12, 1978. Mr. Saul said the request involved 2.5 acres and the property was annexed in 1972 when the M-1 District was applied. The property is vacant at this time. He reviewed the surrounding property and zoning. Development would allow a single-family subdivision. He recommended that the sign district also be cha~ged from indus- trial to residential. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. 2/26/79--7 I , 2... C.B. 1837--Rezoning from M-1/SR to R-1 property located on Bertelsen Road north of 18th Avenue (Bottensek) (Z 78-36) 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 findings supporting the rezoning, including change in Sign District, as set forth in Planning Commission's staff notes and minutes of December 12, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto; 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 and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. 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 18345. A short recess was taken. E. Code Amendment Re: Panhandle Lots Recommended by Planning Commission January 8, 1979, with a 4:1 vote. Manager said Council was to consider tonight two separate ordinances regarding panhandle lots. One would establish certain standards; and the other would set special assessments for improvements. On April 10, 1978, Council established a moratorium on panhandle lots. ~ Subsequently, an ad hoc committee was set up by Council to study the ~ various standards and policies regarding panhandle lots. The Committee recommendations were forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. ' Discussion was held before the Commission at several meetings, with Commission action January 8. He noted Council Bill 1839 for assessments requires six votes of the Council and would not go into effect until six months after passage. Mr. Saul said the recommendations regarding panhandle lot standards were primarily a result of the Review Committee, whose members included: Councilors D. W. Hamel and Scott Lieuallen; Planning Commissioner~ Randy Thwing and James Pearson; Citizens Arden Munkres, Elaine Roccio, and Dr. Glen Purdy; Landscape Architect Peter Thompson; and Architect Dan Childress. The charge presented by the Council to the Committee was to evaluate the standards as they existed in an effort to improve the standards and to minimize the basis for complaints, but retaining the basic concept of panhandle lots for increasing housing density. The Committee had the benefit of the records and public hearings, and also held its own public hearing May 24. Neighborhood groups and interested parties were invited to attend with the resulting 10 to 15 people attending. 2/26/79--8 - 113 e Principle problems identified throughout included to what extent the prior standards had been enforced. The Committee agreed there had been enforcement problems. Thus, a recommendation was made to improve enforcement by incorporating the standards within the City Code to provide a legal basis for enforcement, with penalties for failure to do so. e A second problem involved the apparent inequity regarding assessments for street improvements. The recommended ordinance for assessments addresses that problem. Specific aspects of the panhandle lot policies included driveways, screening, paving, and those are included in the proposed ordinance. A substantial consideration was that panhandle lots shoul~ not be promoted in established neighborhoods. He said this was expressed in a vari ety of ways from "not at all II to "maybe under certai n ci rcum- stances." However, the Committee did face problems of how to define what constitutes an established neighborhood. Thus, the Committee came up with a standard which would address the concerns submitted. These were the basis for the primary recommendation of graduated standards for minimum lot sizes depending on the location: The panhandle lot development may be approved if the parcel is: 1) A vacant parcel containing at least 18,000 square feet and a residence located within an existing subdivision; or 2) a vacant parcel contain- ing at least 16,000 feet located within an existing subdivision; or 3) a developed parcel containing at least 18,000 square feet and a residence located within an existing subdivision; or 4) parcel in an area specifically identified by the Planning Commission and Council as appropriate for panhandle lot development. At the Planning Commission discussion, there was some concern regard- ing graduated lot standards. However, the Commission did feel the Committee's proposal was an attempt to respond to public concerns and something the City should adopt, follow, and evaluate in the future. Mr. Saul distributed a memorandum dated June 14, 1978, regarding the number of lots in the City in various size categories. Public hearing ~as opened. e Sally Weston, 2595 Highland Drive, was speaking only for herself and not the neighborhood group. She did note the neighborhood group had reviewed the ordinance and did support the compact urban growth form. She had watched the growth of plans and policies of the city, supported compact growth, energy conservation, and avoidance of urban sprawl. She was concerned about reducing the number of lots with the present ordinance, but noted she could accept that as a compromise in order to obtain some standards and enforcement for panhandle lots. She referred to a recent Register-Guard article where the real objections seemed to be the idea that "ticky tacky" houses would result. She felt the standards for panhandle houses would be the same as for any other houses in the city. She noted 2/26/79--9 lllf a number of very highly developed and desirable panhandle lots in Eugene. She referred to a sentence in which "substandard intrusion" was mentioned in the article. She wondered what that meant. By ~ requiring 18,000 square feet for a developed lot, she said that .., would mean the lot for panhandling would have to be 50-percent larger than existing lots for single-family dwellings. She also could not see where the ordinance spoke to double-panhandle lots. Regarding design review, she said some new houses on conventional lots could also benefit from design review. She noted it was costly, but felt it might be worth including. She felt it is no more appropriate for panhandle lots than for all new construction. Regarding the assess- ments, she wondered if this would relieve the front owners, or would the panhandle lot be paying part of the assessment, or would it tend to double the assessment. She felt in light of the adopted goals and policies, the City should adopt this ordinance even though she felt it to be a compromise. Nick Burburichh 2290 Cal Young Road, noted the ordinance would drasti- cally affect t e Cal Young area. Many people have property with ~ 17-feet access into the property, with perhaps up to a 1-1/4 acres to be panhandled. He said the ordinance increasing the width of an access to 20 feet would, in effect, mean those people could not panhandle their lots. He requested the Council not adopt the change in access width. He felt the people in the Cal Young area should be able to develop their land, just as owners of Valley River Center and other developments have been able to do so. Allen Whittington, 585 Oakway Road, represented himself and the owner ~. of property at 565 Oakway Road. They each own one-half acre, 419- .., feet depth, and the land was going to waste. The land is close to town, could be very useful, and is expensive property. However, it is land-locked. He noted with the change of access from 15 to 20 feet, with the building five feet from his house or property line, he would need 30 feet to panhandle his one-half acre. With the change from 15 to 20 feet, it would effectively block both pieces from being panhandled. He suggested an alternative of one-way street in and one-way street out, rather than a 20-foot drive. He also expressed concern that if he did panhandle, he would be paying a double assessment. He noted he had just completed paying for an assessment for Oakway Road. He said he could sell his property to the City for a park. Another consideration was for a unit trust to out-of-state college, which he is strongly considering. However, in deeding hlS half acre, his neighbor's half acre would be entirely unusable. He wanted to make use of his land, but said the change of access width would completely eliminate his property. Janet Calvert, 1062 Woodside Drive, spoke on behalf of the League of , Women Voters of Central Lane County. The group has consistently supported compact urban growth and feels that all neighborhoods should accommodate a variety of housing types. The group supports panhandle lots and other innovative methods of gaining greater density, especi ally in new areas. However, they urged Council to al ter the proposed ordinance to allow 14,000 square feet to be the standard e 2/26/79--10 115 e lot size for all vacant lots whether they are in old or new subdi- V1Slons. Also, more creative use of large vacant lots should be considered. It was hoped that Council would have staff prepare ordinances as soon as possible to permit housing types such as duplexes or two attached single-family homes on large undeveloped lots. They recognized that higher density has to have some degree of public support. In order to accomplish higher density and maintain certain amenities of living, it was suggested that innovative design and design compatibility with the neighborhood be encouraged. They also supported the new assessment ordinance for panhandle lots. She emphasized the groupDs feeling that a uniform vacant lot the size of 14,000 square feet for panhandle lots would be a more consis- tent implementation of the City's policy for compact urban growth. Karen Lansdowne, 10 Donovan Drive, spoke on behalf of the Gal Young Neighborhood Association. She noted that this issue had been a primary concern of the neighborhood as many lots are being developed in their area. A major problem was that the 1990 Plan had not been developed before that area started growing. It was felt that if a plan for a panhandle lot development is too specific and not reviewed within a reasonable amount of time it would be highly detrimental to the City's goals. Thus, it was suggested that the City take action which would allow flexibility and revisions of particular requirements. Perhaps certain guidelines could be set up, with a mode for appeal from those guidelines, i.e., perhaps the 20-foot access width would not be applicable to some lots. She questioned why four-parking spaces were required when two were the normal requirement. She noted the lack of money for City parks. If the City continues infilling with asphalt/housing, it will destroy the few green open spaces that do exist. Thus, the livability feature will also be destroyed at the time the City is trying to create infilling in housing. She was concerned about play areas for children, and stressed the Council should look at whether it's eliminating open spaces with too much infilling. R. L. Whitson, 2359 Lariat Drive, spoke to the section in the ordi- nance regarding enforcement. He felt some panhandle lots had been "attrocious," and hoped there would be teeth in the ordinance for enforcement. He felt the 20-foot access driveway to be an error and did not think it fair to increase the access when 15 feet would be plenty wide for such access. He was very concerned about the four-car parking lot requirement. e Rob Robertson, 794 Crest Drive, spoke on behalf of the Crest Drive Citizens. They supported the panhandle lot ordinance and feel there is a need for implementation as quickly as pOSSible. He noted the problem in the requirement increasing 17-1/2 to 20-foot paving width. They favored the 20- to 25-foot access with the 12-foot paving width. He said if a 12-foot paving width was adequate for single- family homes, then it should be adequate for panhandle lots. e 2/26/79--11 116 Charles Kennedy, 2706 Sorrel Way, favored the ordinance. He felt if it was the best the staff could come up with, then it was necessary ~ to pass it tonight as there is a need for that land to be available. ~ He noted most of this land will end up with small developers and the City needs that kind of small capital investment. Regarding the increase in driveway width, he cited that as an example of what happens when engineers set standards based on optimum conditions. He felt this would drive up the cost of housing. He said it was not necessary under any conditions to make driveways 20-feet wide. He felt it might be an optimum condition, but it might not be workable. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Saul said regarding the assessments, that by increasing the assessable width for the panhandle lot, it would reduce the assessment for property fronting the lot in excess of 60 feet. Regarding the access width, several factors should be noted. The paving width for two or more lots actually represents a reduction from existing stan- dards which now require 20 feet. The ordinance reduces that standard to 17-1/2 feet for two or more lots. The Committee did modify the access and paving width requirement for one lot. The requirements to provide four parking spaces is not a change. The present requirement requires four off-street parking spaces on a rear lot. The only change is that two may be within an enclosed garage. Regarding design review, he said the Committee did debate that and determined not to include it for several reasons. One was inability ~ to arrive at an adequate standard. Concerns were expressed about costs involved in design review, both for the developed housing and direct cost to the City. He noted during 1977, 110 panhandle applica- tions were reviewed. Using the City's normal costs for initial review, the City costs were $48,510. However, he noted design review had been a concern of the Committee. Ms. Smith questioned whether yearly review of the proposed ordinance was discussed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Saul said the Commis- sion recognized that both it and the Council will be involved in a review of panhandle requests. Ms. Schue moved to amend the motion to retain one-lot access width at 15 feet and retain the paving width at 12 feet. Mayor Keller suggested Ms. Schue wait until the main motion was on the floor before offering an amendment. Mr. Delay asked if the only thing that prevented development of half of the possible panhandle lots was the inability to provide 25-foot access, would the existing variance code be applicable for these situations? Mr. Saul said the panhandle ordinance simply deals with a question of land division. The provisions and variances e 2/26/79--12 \n 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 Mr. Saul noted there were 122 lots within the 14,000 to 16,000 square- foot range, which are eliminated by the ordinance because they have residences on them, and could not be panhandled at this time. e Mr. Haws said he would prefer to delete Item 3 which stated a developed parcel containing at least 18,000 square feet and a residence located within an existing subdivision would be allowable for a panhandle lot development. He favored an annual review and a slow increase in the number of panhandle lots allowed. Mr. Haws moved to amend the motion to increase the square footage in Section 9.095(a)(3) from 18,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to amend the motion under Section 9.095(a)(3) to decrease from 18,000 square feet to 16,000 square feet requirement. Mr. Delay said there were 2,000 possible lots in existence under this section. The current limitation would eliminate 60 percent of them; with his amendment only 32 percent would be eliminated. Mr. Lieuallen felt the staff had done a fine job trying to balance all the interests regarding this issue. However, he did not particu- larly like the outcome. He reviewed the past history and the various appeals that had come to Council. Some appeals had been denied and others upheld, with no apparent consistency. He had supported the moratorium because of the technicality of timing. He served on the Ad Hoc Committee for some time with a high interest and concern in trying 4It to set certain standards for panhandle lots. Subsequently, he came to the conclusion the Committee was being swayed by certain people trying to promote exceptions for certain classes in certain neighborhoods. He was willing to support this amendment to the ordinance. However, he was concerned that this was a retreat from good City policy. He would support it if it would indicate to the community that the Council has shown consideration for their concerns, but at the same time he wanted citizens to assume their responsibility and accept the outcome. Ms. Miller said she was generally inclined to support the amendment based on the need for increased housing density in the city. She noted some resistance from people who do not want to see their parti- cular neighborhoods change, and she expressed sympathy with those people. However, she said the City has a major policy that supports infilling; 16,000 square feet would still allow a fairly large city lot. - 2/26/79--14 \ l'\ ~-'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 / 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 18347. .-~ Mr. Lieuallen said he felt the most positive aspect of the whole process had been to codify this system. Mayor Keller thanked the the Subcommittee, the neighborhood groups, and citizens for their part in the process. F. New Liquor License Outlets 1. Shakey's Pizza Parlor (R), Fred Meyer Shopping Center (Subject to Building and Fire departments' conditions) 2. Genghiskhan Mongolian Barbecue (R), 900 West 7th (Subject to Building and Fire departments' conditions) 3. 4th Street Depot (RMB), 453 Willamette Street (Subject to Building and Fire departments' conditions) Managed noted staff found all applications in order, and recommended forwarding to OLCC with recommendation for approval, noting the various conditions from the Building and Fire departments. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to forward to OLCC recommendation for approval, subject to conditions. Motion carried unanimously. ~. II. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING--None III. ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING--None IV. RESOLUTIONS Res. No. 3084--Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period :ebruary 12 through February 26, 1979, was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve Council minutes of February 12, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. . 2/26/79--16 l21 - - e VI. ADOPT FINDINGS OF FACT--Distributed Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt Findings of Fact re: Goodpasture Island/Nazarene Planned Unit Development diagrammatic approval (PD 78-16). Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to February 28, 1979. ~)~ Charles T. Henry City Manager DT :jm/CM12a1 2/26/79--17 Il2