11/26/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilman Murray asked if the staff position was that traffic generated by the development could be accommodated if the street improvement requirement were met .- by the developer. Manager replied that it would, plus Council authority to im- prove Hawkins Heights to 18th if the need is found to be there. Councilwoman Beal inquired about provision of sidewalk. Manager answered that dedication of additional right-of-way abutting the property is one condition of preliminary approval. However, right-of-way would have to be acquired through dedication or purchase should a sidewalk be desired on Hawkins Heights north of the Trillium intersection. Councilwoman Campbell referred to the traffic congestion on South Willamette and asked if traffic counts for the Hawkins Heights area were provided and acceptable to the Planning Commission. Public Works Director answered that no counts in the Hawkins Heights area were made. He added that the two areas were not comparable - that the Hawkins Heights problem is more a street alignment situation. Manager explained that traffic carrying capacity can be judged through the traffic engineer's ability to estimate approximate amount of traffic from the density and development, plus knowledge of street capacity. All PUD requests, he said, are referred to Public Works for traffic analysis as well as sewer capacities, etc. Councilman Murray asked about provisions for storage space within the development. Mr. Safley felt the development was unique in that respect - atriums are designed into the structures so that all patios will face toward the center of the development. e Lawrence E. Legas, 2060 Hawkins Heights Boulevard, said that the developers had not contacted people in the neighborhood individually. And he felt the cluster- type housing concept was being forced on the neighborhood and would promote fire, traffic, and school problems. Mr. Kays agreed there was a difference between the South Willamette situation and Hawkins Heights Boulevard. However, he thought traffic buildup on 18th would be similar. He said the neighborhood felt major concerns about the area should be brought to the Council's attention. Mr. Gleaves said he did not believe it would be the Council's intention to use PUD procedures for a development when the de- velopers themselves and a member of the design team acknowledge that problems exist in the area. Or when a project would aggravate existing problems. He ex- pressed concern about intrusion of multiple-family density in the single-family area. Neither was there assurance even though a petition was filed that the streets would be improved. He felt the Council should resolve existing traffic and other problems in the area or set some time table for taking care of them so that people there would know what to expect. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Wood to deny the appeal and adopt by reference thereto findings of fact listed on pages 16 and 17 of the . October 9, 1973 Planning Commission minutes. Councilman Williams said that because of the close association and discussions he had with one of the appellants in this issue, and upon advice from the City Attorney that under the Fasano ruling that contact could impinge upon his decision, he re- frained from entering into the discussion and would abstain from voting. Councilman Hershner said he was not sure who carried the burden of proof in applying for planned unit developments, but he was not satisified that sufficient evidence had been presented to show that the traffic situation would be adequately provided for. He said his conclusion from staff comments was that the City may have to' acquire additional width for the street to the north and probably will be confronted with assessing people for widening. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said that the appellants bear the burden of proof. He cited the section of the Code covering criteria for permitting a PUD which indicated among other things that a permit may be granted if it is found traffic which will be generated can be accommodated safely except for single-family density. Me. Long said the question had not come up before and would have to be studied before an opinion given. Traffic may not be the basis on which a permit could be denied. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, Councilmen Beal, . Campbell, Murray, and Wood voting aye; Councilman Hershner voting no; Councilman Williams abstaining. A short recess was taken. , , ~4b 11/26/73 - 4