09/17/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

posting for the Planning Commission hearing and found that a hearing e had already been held. Plans had been submitted and circulated to several City departments. Some changes had been made. To her, this appeared to be site review. She noted the State Statutes required others to be notified. The Eugene Code indicated personal notice should go to abutting property owners. There is nothing in the code about a hearing by the Planning Commission. Ms. Tegger felt she had a right to be notified personally of the Planning Commission meeting. She recognized that the contention that she was an abutting property owner was a matter of debate. She felt she was an abutting property owner since the properties touch at a survey point. She explained she was not at the council meeting to oppose the project. She was there to ask to be included in the review of the development. Mr. Krumdieck had not talked to her nor had his architect. She was not contacted by the Planning Department. She was told that a CIR (controlled income rental) density could be increased without a hearing. She specul ated this information might be in error. ~She explained the area is a horseshoe of single-family dwellings. Many elderly live there with some young families. The plans for the development show all 35 units exiting in front of her house. This will not be a street vacation, she said. It will increase street usage from two units to 35 units. When giving a vacation it is private benefit and should be for the pub 1 i c good. This is not a vacation that is closing down a street; it is opening a street. The property is zoned RG with intent to be compatible with an R-l zone. If the street is taken out of City ownership and given to private ownership all the setback requirements e are changed and the total square footage changes. Density would be increased and setbacks decreased. The impact on the neighborhood would be considerably more with the street in private hands rather than the street left as it is. She asked for the assurance that she would be involved in the process of development. Ms. Hawkhold, 2970 Oak Street, objected to the development which would be putting a parking lot ten feet from her front yard. They have parking for 15 or 16 cars and she asked where the rest of the cars would park. All of the traffic going to and from the project will go by her house. Elsie S. Brechtel, 2966 Oak Street, felt there was a traffic problem on Oak because of the dead end on 29th. She felt it was a potentially dangerous situation. Iva Parker, 2990 Pearl Street, was very concerned about parking. The area has a problem with IIgutll traffic on the street. She objected to the street vacation. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Croteau observed that much of the testimony objected to the development that will occur. The staff has in this street vacation file a plot plan that was submitted for review for fire access. Staff e 9/17/80--7