12/08/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jim Croteau stated that at the time of diagrammatic approval the evaluation did . not include a full LCDC goal review since this had been done earlier. He reviewed the goals with regard to this particular PUD. Regarding Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, notices were mailed to Oak Hills homeowners and those who have expressed interest. Regarding Goal 2, Land Use Planning, this does not apply. Regarding Goal 3, Agricultural Land~, the land contains soil type VI-E which is not recognized as agricultural land. Regarding Goal 4, Forest Land, soil types are poorly suited for forest. Regarding Goal 5, Open Space, this area has been identified as being important for open space and for scenic opportunities. For this reason the PUD suffix has been added so that the development will be sensitive to open space. He is unaware of any historic value. Regarding Goal 6, Air, Water, and Land Quality, the property will be served by urban services and these items will not be adversely affected by the development. Regarding Goal 7, Natural Disaster, careful consideration was given to the potential for natural hazards and they will have to submit a geological report. Goal 8, Significant Open Space and Pedestrian Trails, will be incorporated in the development. Goal 9, Economy of State, is not applicable. Regarding Goal 10, Housing, this development will consist of mixed housing types. New annexations have occurred in the last quarter and there is now only a three- or four-year supply of developable vacant lots. The Metropolitan Plan recommends a six- to ten-year supply. Regarding Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services, these are covered in the PUD findings and Section 9.512(7)(c) of the City Code. Goal 12 will be covered by staff evaluation. Goal 13, Energy Conservation, is not applicable. Regarding Goal 14, Urbanization, there are two issues: a) the- urban growth boundary was adopted in the Metropolitan Plan and it is the same as in the 1990 Plan; and b) converting from urbanizable to urban . land. In considering the plan, four factors must be taken into account. Regarding item 1, orderly provisions of services, he would refer back to Goal 11, item 2, variety of land availability, he would refer back to Goal 10, item 3 he would refer to the LCDC goals, and item 4, encourage urban area development. This land has been in the city for four years. Goals 15-19 are not applicable. In response to the statement in the appeal which says that the rules of the hearing precluded the introduction of written materials, Mr. Croteau stated that the material regarding the traffic study was submitted at the time of the public hearing and the public hearing allows _both verbal and written testimony. Mr. Delay stated that in the memo from the Planning staff to the council, it was noted that only items designated as being in error by the appellant shall be considered by the appellant body; but in the agenda information accompanying the appeal form, in the fifth paragraph, there is a mechanism to request submission of new evidence. He asked why this process would be included on the form if it would not be allowed. He felt staff may want to re-examine this process. He asked if general procedures were adequate or because of PUD's, there was a need to make traffic flow studies for each PUD. Mr. Croteau responded that material submitted at the time of the Hearing's Official hearing was acceptable. He said that traffic access has been a top concern for PUD's in the South Hills. Even though streets can handle the number of cars, this can reduce livability. The Planning Department relies on Public Works to determine adequacy and they require several access points. Mr. Delay stated that the appellant had said that an accurate measurement must be taken rather than relying on estimates. Mr. Croteau said that traffic counts are not done for PUD's. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1980 Page 6