08/10/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-- -~ ---fo-.------- ------- . ~ssessments will involve mainly the subdivider. Ms. Smith asked how that . petition by the subdivider balanced with the petition submitted against the project. Mr. Teitzel responded that only two of the owners who signed the petition against the project will be assessed. Ms. Miller asked if each of the sections are large enough to divide into three lots. Mr. Teitzel stated that most of them could be at least three lots. Mr. Lindberg asked how many people are involved in the petition which has 82 percent. Mr. Teitzel responded that only one who will be assessed is involved. Ms. Wooten asked what the development would ultimately mean in regard to traffic and schools. Mr. Teitzel stated that 20 to 30 homes could be built on that street. They are projecting eight trips per day per household, which would equal 160 to 240 trips per day. He could not make a comment from the school's point of view. Staff does not feel the street improvements are being questioned as much as the subdivision itself is. Ms. Wooten asked if the subdivision will still occur if the improvements do not. Mr. Teitzel stated they could still get a permit to build houses and the road would be gravel. Mr. Obie asked if this area is designated low-density residential in the Metro Plan. Mr. Teitzel responded that it is. Mr. Obie stated that council has the option of seeing that houses are either built on farmlands or within the city limits. Th i s i s part of a compact urban area. He does not think the council has any choice but to approve this project. That is the City policy. Ms. Schue stated that the council is interested in people's opinions but the council must act in relationship to City goals and policies on urban growth. Traffic should not be a major concern with only three lots involved. Denial of . the right to develop when the developer will pay the costs is unsubstantiated. It is the obligation of the City to allow development to occur. There is a City program for those who are retired and cannot pay the assessments. Ms. Wooten said that these issues are frustrating. The expenses of growth must be shared by all, and as long as there is some growth people cannot expect it to occur everywhere except in limy neighborhood." There is no real option. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to award the contract (Job No. 1723) to the low bidder. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimous ly. Mr. Teitzel stated the next item under consideration is paving and storm sewer on Dove Lane from North Ruskin Street to 460 feet east (Job No. 1963). This was initiated by School District 52 for access to their bus yard and to control dust. Public hearing was opened: Robert O'Donnell, 1915 Ruskin, stated that he was surprised this project is being considered since all the taxpayers voted against it previously. Since Bethel School District is a public institution, they feel that if this project is so important perhaps it should be voted on by all of the people in the school district. He will have no use for this street, since the'City put up a barricade . MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 10, 1981 Page 3