My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/26/1978 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1978
>
06/26/1978 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/24/2007 2:06:30 AM
Creation date
11/2/2006 5:29:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
6/26/1978
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />l . <br />I <br /> traffic from the development. He said under the traffic diverter <br /> policy, staff had worked at length with neighbors in the area to " <br /> establish the best possible diverter. The proposal would not modify <br /> the essential aspects of that solution as being the best available <br /> and was done in cooperation with the neighborhood as a whole and in <br /> particular with the residents in that area. He said while there would <br /> be some increase in traffic on Eastwood, the actual amount would be <br /> minimal and less than capacity standards under the City Code. <br /> Mr. Hamel noted the traffic problem had existed for some time, and he <br /> hoped that staff would address the overall traffic problem in the <br /> area, or perhaps temporarily stop construction of homes in that area <br /> until the traffic problem was solved. <br /> Jack O'Neil, 485 Fair Oaks Drive, in rebuttal, said there is only one <br /> exit onto Oakway Road for the whole area. The new development will be <br /> faced with the same crowded traffic problems and will add to that <br /> problem. He did not feel the traffic diverter would do that much <br /> good. However, he did note he was in favor of the development as <br /> being a good use of the land. However, he felt before the develop- <br /> ment went ahead, there should be a traffic study done of the entire <br /> neighborhood. <br /> Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony <br /> presented. <br /> Mr. Lieuallen felt the m~or problem was through traffic on Fairway e <br /> Loop. He suggested perhaps there should be a diverter system to <br /> eliminate through traffic and leave access only for residents. Mr. <br /> Hanks noted there had been such a diverter, with serious objections <br /> from the neighborhood people; thus, the change to the present diverter <br /> system. <br /> Subsequent discussion centered around conducting another traffic study <br /> in the area, and getting response from neighborhood as to how they <br /> feel about eliminating through traffic in the area. It was noted for <br /> Council that that option is open; however, a thorough study had just <br /> been completed resulting in the present diverter which was favored by <br /> a m~ ority of the residents. Council felt the PUD should be approved, <br /> but the traffic problem needed to be addressed. Mr. Allen pointed out <br /> the problem of further study in the area, noting the just-completed <br /> T-2000 Plan. He said there was no immediate answer or solution for <br /> arterials in the area, and staff is limited in what it can do there. <br /> In response to a question from Mr. Haws, Mr. Saul said options open <br /> for Council at this time were: 1) sustain the appeal in its entirety; <br /> 2) deny the appeal in total; 3) approve the development and modify the <br /> conditions. Mr. Haws felt the street should be blocked at point A (on <br /> map distributed by Mr. Saul), and the PUD should take access off <br /> Fairway Loop. <br /> - <br /> 6/26/78--10 <br /> 1f4l1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.