12/08/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, . Mr. Hanks stated that that they do make traffic count estimates without taking actual traffic counts in some areas as in Firland Heights. The engineer's estimates were accurate as they later did traffic counts that substantiated the est imates. In regard to new evidence, Stan Long, City Attorney, stated that paragraph five of the appeal form sets out the process by which one can ask the council to accept new information, but no new evidence has been submitted by the appellant so the council is confined to the material that is on record. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing wa~ opened. Speaking in favor of the appeal: Richard Roseta, 1970 Dogwood, stated that confirmation of the estimates of traffic flow was introducing new information. In regard to Mr. Delay's ques- tion regarding the problem with submitting new evidence, the engineering study presented by John Matott was very lengthy and he received a copy the night of the hearing and was unable to respond to it on such short notice. The traffic reports are based on estimates. The Traffic Engineering staff made further studies, but Mr. Matott has not requested it be entered into public record; Mr. Hanks just did that. In regard to the Branch Engineering study, 75 percent of the traffic flow from the new development will flow down Dogwood Drive. The estimates were under that. The flows being projected are almost to the 1985 project ion. They have requested the following modification: that Dogwood not be-connected to Spring Boulevard until Phase 3 or else never connected, or . blocked off so no heavy traffic will go through until Phase 3 is completed, by which time the 30th Avenue overpass will be completed. Traffic flow counts are lower on Spring Boulevard and on Kimberly. They do not oppose this development; however, access is a problem. They are concerned that Dogwood will take the brunt of the traffic. They would like to wait for this development to occur until the 30th overpass is a probability, not a possibility. In regard to Eugene City Ordinance 9.512(7)(c), a comparison with other areas and services, there is no evidence in the record upon which a finding could be based that public services and facilities are available to the same degree as they were in other similar locations in the city where developments were approved since such comparative information is not in the record. He noted that this is a technical object ion. The concern is that this PUD would add 60 new homes with 75 percent of the traffic going down Dogwood. He also feels that the 30th and Agate inter- section now qualifies for a traffic light. This points to the fact that it is an access problem. Geoffrey Simmons, 1991 Dogwood, stated that he has addressed the council three times previously as have his neighbors and friends. . Danger has been the word in each instance. The number of cars going through is not as relevant as what happens in bad weather conditions. When it snowed, none of the cars cou~d get up Kimberly or Dogwood and now 60 more cars will be added. This would be very dangerous. He agrees with Mr. Roseta regarding placement of a barrier. They are facing the same situation as the Fairmount Neighbors with the Wang property. This is a comparable situation being handled differently. If Mr. Wang is prevented from developing, then Mr. Matott should be also. . Speaking in opposition to the appeal: MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1980 Page 7