08/28/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\ area, land use, etc., but pointed out that "capacity" is subj ecti ve and clearly de- pends upon what particular level of sufficiency one would feel is acceptable - whether in terms of traffic breakdown or in terms of dollars to correct a situation. .~ In further answer to Councilman Williams, Traffic Engineer said monies were proposed to be budgeted this year to start acquisition of right-of-way for revision of the 29th and Willamette intersection, installation of turn lanes, etc., with idea of starting construc- tion in 1975-76. These 'funds were not approved, however, so although the preliminary design is completed for an intersection comparable to that at Oakmont and Coburg, it is a question of when it will be funded. He pointed out construction is overdue at that intersection and in answer to Mr. Williams, estimated acquisition would costc$150,000, construction $45,000, at today's prices. Mrs. Beal asked how critical that intersection would be if the Southridge and BALSM de- velopments were constructed and whether priority for its improvement would be raised. Traffic Engineer answered that Southridge is estimated to'add 1600 vehicles per day, BALSM 1100, but most of the BALSM traffic would go through 30th and Hilyard, which intersection is also "congested." He estimated, in answer to Mrs. Beal, that it would take something more than $300,000. That project has significantly greater problems be- cause of the intersection of East and West Amazon. But, he added, grant money is avail- able there, whereas at, 29th and Willamette it is not available for right-of-way acquisi- tion which constitutes the greatest expense. Mrs. Beal asked if cost estimates are available on extension of fire and police services . to the Southridge and BALSM developments. Assistant Manager replied that the projects will have admitional bearing on total cost to the City, but a definitive answer could not be given without a detailed study comparable to that undertaken in Palo Alto which cost them about $100,000. Mrs. Beal said she thinks there should be some idea of the impact developments of this size will make on costs to the City's taxpayers, and that a planning cost estimate should be built into every development to give cumulative effects in terms of what such development will return to the City in the way of tax monies as compared to what it will cost for services to the area. She asked that this be a matter for discussion at a Wednesday committee meeting. Assistant Manager said that the issue raised is really too broad and complex for application to only these two pro- posals (Southridge and BALSM) and staff would have to do some work on comparison between conventional types of development and planned unit developments. The issue in front of the Council, he said, is not so much whether the projects create a burden as it is whether they create a greater or lesser burden than conventional deN"elopments. The areas have been annexed, and in annexing them the City has tacitly said services would be extended to them. I Councilman Bradshaw commented that the question in making a decision on these two de- velopments would appear to be whether there was adequate planning to take care of problems which would be caused by the projects - impact on traffic and schools - and whether these two items were heard before the Planning Commission. Mr. Teague added that the Council recognized that there are traffic problems in several areas of the . City and work will continue in,an attempt to resolve those problems. The question now is whether the Southridge and BALSM projects meet the criteria set forth in the ordinance, whether the Planning Commission has made an error in its decision to give preliminary approval, and to see that interested parties have the opportunity to be heard. I Councilman McDonald asked that staff bring to the Council the amount of dollars that will be added to the City's valuation by the two developments. Councilman Hershner called attention to his abstention from discussion and said he would abstain from voting on the Southridge proposal, this because of conflict of interest. Councilman Mohr noted that the committee, authorized through adoption of the interim plan for the South Hills area, has been meeting and addressing itself to issues of general traffic congestion, school loading capacities, park d~velopment, ~tc.. In this assignment, he said, the committee is gathering informatlon for use In'these general problem areas without specific reference to anyone development. Assistant Manager said the City Attorney has suggested language for a m~tion if ~he . Council desires to deny the appeal. If not, action can be deferred untll'a meetlng with the Planning Commission before taking final action. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Teague on behalf of the City Council to deny the appeal by Jean Smith and the South Eugene Homeowner's Association ~f the decision by the Eugene Planning Commission made on July 12, 1972 grant~ng preliminary approval with conditions for Phase One of the Sout~rid~e PUD (PD 71-21); to find that the Southridge PUD co~forms to the cr~ter~a and re- quirements set forth in Section 9.782 of the Clty Code; and to ~pprove the proposed development subject to the conditions of approval requlred by the Planning Commission'. .L5.3 8/28/72 - 5