12/08/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

p . Mr. Henry stated that this is an appeal of the Hearings Official's action granting diagrammatic approval for a residential planned unit development south of 30th Avenue adjacent to Spring Boulevard and Dogwood Drive. The developers are not asking for a zoning change and this issue has been delayed for various reasons previously. The action at the council tonight will be to provide direction to staff to prepare findings in accordance with the council's desires. These findings will be brought back to the council December 22 for final action. He introduced Jerry Jacobson, Planning, to provide additional information. Mr. Jacobson stated that this item has been before the council previously. The property was annexed in 1976, but due to procedural error it was not rezoned until June 1980. The surrounding property is zoned RA Suburban Residential District and RA/PD Suburban Residential District with Planned Unit Development procedures. Access to this 13-acre site (Firland Heights) will be through Dogwood Drive and Spring Boulevard. The proposed 30th Avenue overpass is to the north and in Lane County construction plans for 1983-84. This request was approved by the Hearings Official and has been appealed to the council. City Code provides the following for council action on appeals from action of the Hearings Official: only those items specifically designated as in error by the appellant shall be considered by the appellant body; testimony offered shall be confined to comments on matters in the record made by the hearing authority pertaining to errors assigned in the written notice of appeal; the appellant body shall make findings that affirm, reverse, or modify the hearing authority's decision; if the hearing authority's decision is reversed or modified, the findings of the appellant body shall specifically state wherein the hearing . authority's decision was in error--Section 9.512, Eugene Code. Jim Spickerman, Hearings Official, and Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineer, are present to answer questions. The basis for the appeal is that the traffic impact evaluation report is not responsive to the' neighborhood's goal of "reasonable compatibility" with regard to the proposed access. The rules of the hearing, according to the appellant, precluded the introduction of written materials at the time of the hearing. The contents of the traffic impact evaluation are based on estimates by an engineer, not by accurate measurement of present traffic flow. The report is not responsive to the ordinance requirement that the proposed access is reas- onably compa~ible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Hearings Official, according to the appellant, apparently relied on what the City Traffic Engineer indicated to the Planning Department regarding street capacity in the area. There was no testimony from the City Traffic Engineer and no documents in the record reflect his views. Additionally, no test results or studies were pro- vided. However, the Hearings Official did find the access needs improvement. Vegetation removal was a concern. The Hearings Official stated that he deter- mined that the access will be reasonably compatible. The appellant cites no findings or evidence that public services and facilities are available. Staff and the Hearings Official indicate normal availability of normal City services. The appellant appeals granting the site modification request of the developer. This was granted subject to no tree removal except within public rights-of-way. The appellant also stated that LCDC goals were not conformed with. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1980 Page 5