05/10/1971 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e "'Ill 68;:; I e I I e ,I e f 1 l I I II ,I II II II Ii II 1\ ! I 1 I II II i ! Ij I, I ! II II I ! Council Chamber Eugene, Oregon May 10, 1971 I . . ! Regular meeting of the Common Councll of the city of Eugene, Oregon was .called to orde~ by Hls i Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on May 10, 1971 in the Council Chamber, with the fOllOW-I' ing Councilmen present: Mrs. Campbell; Messrs. McDonald, Gribskov, Williams, and Hershner. Mrs. Beal, Mr. Mohr> and Mr>. Teague were not pr>esent. I. Awards, Interriaticmal Cooperation Committee - Mayor Anderson outlined inception of this commi ttee~four years ago, andtrtat its purpose was to br>ing closer ties with those of other nations and contribute to International Cooperation. Mayor Anderson expressed his pleasure in awarding certificates to several organiz9tions and citizens of the community who, by their efforts and work, had shown themselves to be greatly interested in international cooperation. r I I II I I I I II. Appointment, Traffic Safety Commission - Mayor Anderson announced appointment of Mr. Arnold Storhoff to the Traffic Safety Commission to replace Mr. Merle Graham. III. Community Relations position - City Manager introduced Mr. Robert ment~ who will replace Dick Jones as Community Relations officer. his position as Captain in the Fire Department. Mazany of the Parks Depart- Mr. Jones will return to I I I I Ii II i and most of them have viewed the site. I I Planning Director explained that this property would normally be developed under residen- II tial density conventional subdivision~ but with Planned Unit Bevelopment it could be better I arranged and utilized. He showed slides demonstrating the arrangement of duplex units in I, the development and layout of streets. He ca4-led attention to the proximity of schools II and parks to the site. ! IV. Public Hearings A. Appeal from Planning Commission Preliminary Approval, Planned Unit Development - Planning Commission decision on Planned Unit Development is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten days. An appeal was filed within the prescribed period by Larry A. Brown. City Council members have had an opportunity to review Planning Commission minutes 'f I. I! Ii !I I I I 'I II Ij II 'I II II I' .I 11 II I II II Ii I: Ii 'I " f! il II " II Ii Ii Ii 'I I, Ii II ,I ,I 'I I, Ii (' ,\ II I: ;, 'i ,. Mr. Larry Brown, 1063 Leigh, said his property abuts the proposed development. The entire area is low density residential. He felt the development would be in variance with the natural development of the neighborhood, and was anxious that prescribed standards of the PUD ordinance be met. He was especially concerned about traffic carriers in the area~ particularly Bailey Lane. I I II II Mr. Brown cited Res. 1418, passed in 1968, and questioned whether the density permitted ! for this PUD might violate that resolution. He outlined requirements of the PUD ordinance, I and requested a determination whether or not the Planning Commission had actually made II findings on these criteria. He asked that the traffic situation be studied before approvaljl was granted for increased density. He requested that the Council postpone a decision to allow negqtiations over a better plan which would be beneficial to the entire neighborhood':1 Mr. Vern Svarverud, 317 Bailey Lane, explained that he had to have his septic tank drained, Ii and that he was concerned what this development would do to his drainfield. !i He explained problems on that street, particularly in early morning hours. He was also concerned with drainage, since the entire area is low and the water table high. Cecil Cunningham, 285 Bailey Lane, Mrs. Robert D. Culver, 1098 Leigh, Pat Malloy, 295 Bailey Lane, Jess Robertson, 1051 Randall, were all concerned about the traffic patterns, how the streets might be relocated and whether they would be widened and resurfaced. :1 I, II II 11 il II Ii I' il Mr. Franklin Buchanon, 1075 Leigh, was concerned that the quality of duplexes might not be as good as that called for in single family construction. He was assured that the developer must meet the construction standards of the city of Eugene. Mr. Larry Cooley, 5152 Mahalo, said he was an attorney representing Mr. Ted Murphy, and addressed himself to points in the letter of appeal. He pointed out that the Planning Commission had granted only preliminary approval, and that many of these requirements did not have to be met at this stage. He said the developer had modified his plan to comply with suggestions of the Traffic Engineer to improve the traffic situation. He commented il that the developer had come up with a plan which met the requirements of staff, and was ;i the best plan for the property, by using the PUD rather than strictly subdividing. :i City Manager called attention to Planning Commission requirements and conditions which must!1 be met prior to final approval of plans. The requirements include paving of streets, storm, and sanitary sewer designs, improvement of Satre Street, addition of walkways. Ii , 1\ Councilmen had questions regarding Bailey Lane, and whether it was a City or County street.! It was pointed out that it was partly outside the City. II - \, In answer to other concerns ~ the COuncil was told that the area was connected to sanitary II sewer, and that if and when the facilities in the area were brought up to City standards, 11 there would be no traffic problem in the area.1 I, I Councilman Williams was concerned about the effect of increased traffic, and felt 5/10/71 - 1 ....