12/08/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Obie asked what consideration will be given in the PUD process to disperse . traffic evenly on Dogwood and Spring. With existing zoning, there is an obli- gation to allow PUD's. There are three streets leading in and Dogwood is the most direct. There are options, if the property is designed properly, to have traffic on other streets. Mr. Croteau stated that in regard to the appellant's concerns of site impact, the council can direct the Hearings Official to consider ingress and egress during other stages of the development process. Ms. Miller stated that the council has indicated as a City policy that this is the type of development they want to encourage for higher density in the city. Dispersing traffic out of the PUD is a good idea but will cause people to drive longer routes which they may not be willing to do. She would like to ask the traffic official to consider the problem. Viewing the 30th overpass as a solution is probably not going to work. She would suggest that no solutions be proposed that would include the 30th overpass as a solution. There is a safety problem and she can understand why they do not want more traffic on Dogwood. Mr. Delay indicated that this is dangerous and is a terrain problem. There are possible solutions, such as partial parking removal. These streets have always been dangerous. He has seen nothing that questions the facts as they have been presented by Mr. Spickerman, who does an excellent job in inter- preting the laws for development. In order to question his decision, there should be some facts to question, but that is not the case. This is just a general problem of increased development. Ms. Schue indicated agreement with Mr. Delay about this situation and stated that she cannot find a reason to overturn the findings. She does have sympathy with the residents on Dogwood. . Mr. Croteau stated,that he would come back with the findings from the Hearings Official regarding the three streets. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. C. Appeal of Administrative Decision Denying Cheshire Street Diverter Proposal (memo and map distributed) Mr. Henry stated that this item has been listed as an appeal of an administra- tive decision, but instead it will be a proposal. Because of a through-traffic problem and neighborhood nuisance, the neighborhood organization and staff have worked together on a study of how to alleviate this situation. The Public Works and Parks & Recreation departments have been involved. Cheshire Street is a park road, not an ordinary public street. Staff and the neighborhood organ- ization had developed a proposal for a diverter to hel~ stop through-traffic, but risk management indicated this creates more hazards t~an solutions. This proposal was submitted to the City Manager's Office where it was denied. The matter had been appealed to the council. Neighborhood groups and City staff agree this was not the best solution so various solutions will be discussed. The Whiteaker Community Council has prepared a proposal and, in addition, Traffic Engineering has prepared a report with alternatives which were discussed with the neighborhood groups. This was similar to the proposal of Whiteaker Community Council. He introduced Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineering, to list the alternatives. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1980 Page 10