Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> opposes the rezoning because there is no access and it would cause a severe <br /> traffic problem. The roads are substandard. Spring Boulevard is 16 feet wide <br />e with no room for sidewalks and it has a steep grade. Studies indicate it is <br /> impossible to improve this road. They are requesting that more planning be done <br /> to look at another means of access. There are already 27 houses on Capitol <br /> Drive with eight to nine more lots that could be developed. They would like the <br /> Planning Commission to consider all 67 acres at one time. These are all the <br /> acres that were noted for development in the ridgeline and they feel that they <br /> should not be considered in a random manner. Some mistakes have been made in <br /> the past, but that is no reason to continue making them. Excess runoff increases <br /> as more houses are built. He asked if the sewer would prove to be inadequate <br /> for the area over time. The neighborhood association can find no w~ys to <br /> improve traffic flow over time. The association also understands that the <br /> project under development will consider access and traffic on Capitol Drive, but <br /> he does not know if that is an accurate statement. The total land owned by <br /> Alpert is about 4.3 acres. Some of this land is not being considered for <br /> rezoning. There is land on the east side of the ridge that has been developed <br /> where the sewage is being pumped uphill. <br /> Dorothy Dougher, 2840 Alta Vista Court, said that the Planning Commission has <br /> recommended approval of this request and they apparently feel that those who <br /> live in the area should expect to live with the hazards of hillside living. <br /> There needs to be mutual consideration. Capitol Drive is a substandard road. <br /> One large vehicle would block access for a fire truck, creating an unsafe <br /> situation. <br /> Robert Grodin, 2830 Capitol Drive, noted agreement with the previous speakers. <br /> He asked when, in the process, traffic considerations are reviewed by the <br />e City. <br /> Speaking in favor: <br /> Peter Thompson, 840 Lawrence, stated that he had submitted information previ- <br /> ously to the Planning Commission. The original request before the council in <br /> the past was for annexing the total property. This request is only for property <br /> to the ridgeline. The applicants met with neighborhood people at the time of <br /> the original application and withdrew their application to look for other <br /> access, as is indicated in the staff notes. No other way was found for access, <br /> except through Hendricks Park. There are only two parcels remaining that <br /> are b u il dab 1 e . Roads, sewers, water, and utilities are already serviced from <br /> the west. Any remaining property will have to be served from the east. There <br /> is a problem with traffic, but there is no way out of it. The traffic situation <br /> will be reviewed during the PUD process. Page II-A-19 of the staff notes shows <br /> that the existing streets will provide access with no other options available. <br /> It is part of Eugene's policy to infill, and they would appreciate approval of <br /> this request. On the map, a number of ways are shown as possible road routes. <br /> There are a number of loop systems for emergency vehicle access. <br /> There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. <br /> Mr. Croteau stated that there had been some testimony regarding the maximum <br /> amount of land that could be annexed. There are two lots to the south of this <br /> property which could be annexed, tax lots 400 and 200. There is a possibility <br />e of perhaps 30 additional units in the future. The South Hills Study governs <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 14, 1981 Page 2 <br />