03/11/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

units per acre, he said, but in actuality one acre cannot accommodate that many. Mr. Tussing said that that information would be available for the March 11 hearing. H~ noted considerably higher density in this area be~ause of lack of cross streets as in normal subdivisions, and construction of houses on land which normally would be dedicated streets. . Councilman Hershner questioned the policy statement disallowing access into the valley from either Spring Boulevard or 30th Avenue, thereby preventing through traffic (Section II - Transportation, C-3). He wondered if more information would be avail- able on that policy statement as well as on Items 1 and 2 in the same section. He mentioned difficulty he had experienced in finding an exit from the valley. Mr. McGuin- ness explained that.the three items under Subsection C were a compromise on develop- ment of traffic routes to be adopted on an iterim basis. He said they would be in effect until a comprehensive plan was adopted; also until a more detailed transporta- tion plan was developed. He said anticipated densities had to be determined before specific routes could be designated. With regard to disallowing a through route, Mr. McGuinness said they did not want an arterial or limited access route cutting through the valley. They felt motorists could use the interchange at Lane Community College on 30th Avenue for access to the freeway. He noted that the freeway (I-5) bordering the valley now contributed considerable noise because of the-grades and amount of traffic. Adding another arterial to connect Spring Boulevard to the free- way would be asking too much of that one neighborhood just for the sake of convenience. . Councilman Hershner questioned adoption of that policy when it seemed there was a need for traffic movement in the area. Manager noted that this question was discussed extensively at staff level and the statement referred to was arrived at as somewhat of a compromise. He called attention to the general statement at the beginning of Section II indicating the transportation section of the Plan was designed to provide sound goals, policies, and proposals until a systematic transportation and traffic plan could be completed for the entire valley, city, and region~ He explained that disallowing a through route in the valley would be valid only until a systematic transportation plan for the valley could be completed. If that indicated there should not be an arterial through that area, then the policy on access from 30th or Spring Boulevard could be finalized. Or, the policy could be changed. He added that the Council always has the prerogative of changing policy if it was found no longer valid. Councilman Murray commented on the process by which any plan or policy changes could be effected. With regard to arterials, Mr. Murray reminded the Council that the neighborhood plans are refinement of the General Plan which does list as one of its general Objectives that major arterials should not bisect and divide neighborhOOds. In answer to Councilwoman Campbell, Mr. Tussing said there was no bus service to I( Laurel Hill valley now. Work is continuing with the mass transit district, he said, , toward working out some interim solution - shuttle busses or the like - until antici- pated bus service to the valley in 1975. . Mayor Anderson wondered why the statement was included with regard to separation and dispersal of planned unit developments (Section I~C-1-c). Mr. Tussing recounted the neighborhood group's objection to a project developed in the valley to a density higher than eight units. After inspecting planned unit developments in other parts of the city they decided to adopt what was essentially the city's density policy for RA zones - four or five units to the acre. .He said figures would be available at the March 11 hearing on actual density of the area now. Mr. Kimball added that separation and dispersal of PUDs would lessen the impact of additional development on the over- all character of the valley. He thought in some cases one block separation bet~een PUDs might be sufficient. In others, perhaps two or three blocks would be more de- sirable. He felt that the provision should be left in the Plan. Mr. Anderson thought the statement seemed vague and could result in considerable variation. He hoped a more specific statement on the real meaning of "separation and dispersal" could be provided so that the Council would have something more concrete on ~hich to base its decisions. Mr. McGuinness felt options should be kept open to allow negotiation. He thought for instance a four-acre development might require different treatment than a 20-acre development. However, he said they would try to work out something more defini te. Manager added approval of PUDs was not an outright. zoning right. 'External impact of a PUD was a primary consideration. The first step required by the Planning Commission on any PUD approval was whether a particular piece of land was appropriate for a proposed PUD. The Plan under discussion, he said, was not a set of standards for everyone, and from the standpoint of developers misleading the public vagueness would not cause the concern it would if it were in a building code or zoning ordinance. It Mayor Anderson referred to Section III - Urban Service, Item C-l. which stated the city should maintain a flexible and open-minded attitude toward alternative methods of pro- viding urban services. He questioned the need for inclusion of that statement, saying I; he thought that would go without saying. He hoped the City would always maintain f ~ha~_~!tiE.'!!!~~_.!!!"~_!!EGu!:..l}!l~S._~hC:>I:!.H__h__~.__t~ statement proper~y epitomized the Ci tizens 70 3/11/74 - 3