12/08/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

John Matott, 767 Willamette Street, No. 307, stated that he is the developer. . H1S letter was in the public record and the traffic report was submitted at the suggestion of Public Works. This study was submitted to various City departments two days prior to the Hearings Official hearing and was available at that time. One reason the engineer's report is based on estimates is because the traffic counter was tampered with. The engineer's estimates were found to be accurate. Mr. Spickerman did not state that the access needed improvement but rather that certain uses to which people put the streets needed to be improved, such as ,vegetation at intersections, and recreational vehicles and cars being parked in the street which is in violation of City law. The Traffic Division routinely receives these applications and the Traffic Engineer does not have to be present when traffic counts are taken. In regard to Mr. Roseta's comment of lack of documentation of PUD services, he showed a slide comparing his proposed sub- division with service levels of other developments. The slide showed present traffic loads and projected loads and indicated these amounts are lower than those of comparable areas. Regarding the site modification request, he has requested removal of some brush in order to survey the area. The F airmount Neighbors are not opposing this development as implied and the level of service is not comparable to the Wang property since it does not have paved streets. The request to block off Dogwood is unfair to those who endure greater traffic volumes and they are unfairly asking for the right to continue enjoyment of a dead-end street and continued seclusion. Harold Gillis, 275 Oak Street, stated that he is the attorney representing Mr. Matott. This proposal is a rather ordinary PUD in an ordinary South Hills neighborhood. The opposition wants the council to reconsider back to annexation . but this property has been zoned and annexed to become part of urban lands for residential use. The Hearings Official has made a ruling. This is a common finding of fact. There has been no evidence to support the notion that this should not be built. No new evidence was presented. Regarding information supplied in the traffic study, if new information was to be presented by the appellant, he has had three months to submit it, but no new information has been presented. The impartial observation by the Hearings Official is to weigh the evidence and to make a recommendation, which has been done. The council's job is to review the code and see if the Hearings Official did an appropriate job based upon the criteria. The development must be consistent with City standards, plans, policies, and ordinances; its general design and character including anticipated location of buildings, recreation space, parking, etc., must be reasonably compatible with appropriate development of the abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood; and public services and facilities must be at least as available as they are in other similar locations in the city where developments were approved. Mr. Spickerman found that these criteria were met. It was suggested that the Hearings Official considered information that should not have been considered, but it is part of his job to determine which infor- mation to consider. Mr. Roseta has attacked the traffic findings but has presented no facts to overturn Mr. Spickerman's findings. Mr. Matott submitted an eight-page letter to the Hearings Official which is part of the record comparing this area to other areas. In regard to the statement that no refer- ences to satisfying specific statutes were made, there is no need to do this unless substantial changes have been made. There is no indication that those changes have been made. The comprehensive plan applies unless changes are made. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1980 Page 8