02/23/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Brothers. Mr. Croteau indicated that the pu~ procedures indicate exactly where the alignment will be. Ms. Wooten stated that Mr. Rexius had indicated that this housing would be in the moderate price range and asked what that would be for that area. Mr. Croteau stated that in hillside sites which are heavily wooded with adverse topography, the Hearings Official has required mixed housing which can be built at less cost than single-family standard dwelling units. Ms. Wooten indicated that she and Mr. Gleason had discussed the cost of service extension, and that she understands it costs about 25 percent of the cost of the unit. Mr. Gleason stated that that is a close estimate. Ms. Wooten asked what portion the City bears the cost for and how it would compare with development in a level area. Mr. Gleason stated that in a standard subdivision, most develop- ment costs are borne by the developer in the cost of the house and future maintenance costs are borne by the City. Mr. Lindberg asked what monitoring provisions there are for ensuring that LCDC Goal 10 is met (adequate inventory of land supply) and how mixed affordable housing is ensured. Mr. Croteau stated that they have not been able to quantify the inventory of land nor its affordability, but they do a quarterly inventory of land supply. Mr. Lindberg asked if there have been studies done as to whether land should be used for certain income levels. Mr. Croteau stated that they have this covered in the PUD process and that, to some extent, costs can be monitored by location. Mr. Lindberg indicated that alternative access should be handled in the PUD process. Mr. Croteau stated that there are concerns from staff and the Planning Commission for the size of development and that the development needs to be phased over a number of years. One of the first phases in this project should provide this street so that it is immediately available to the property to the north. Mayor Keller stated that this could be prejudging two other annexations which the council may feel differently about in the future. Mr. Lindberg stated that the adverse testimony focuses not on normal traffic, but on truck traffic such as would appear with construction of the development. He asked if the new road would help with truck traffic and with safety concerns. Mr. Hanks stated that the new road would have a lesser grade, probably 15 percent, and that would reduce the concern about truck brake failure. Ms. Miller stated that her main concern was that the Boundary Commission unani- mously rejected this application previously. Much work has been done, but the Boundary Commission's concerns should be taken seriously. She would not want the same application sent back to them that they had previously rejected. Mr. Obie said that the Boundary Commission may have "overstepped its boundaries" by being concerned with municipal traffic. Mr. Gleason stated that this is a municipal issue. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney, stated that the Boundary Commis- sion can determine the adequacy of public services. Mr. Obie asked what would happen if the council decided to allow 5,000 cars per day on certain streets. Mr. Gleason said that the Boundary Commission must accept the council's deci- sion. Mr. Obie noted discomfort with the Boundary Commission's findings. He said that traffic from construction is nothing new and he does not feel that that is a rational argument to delay a project. Mr. Lindberg stated that the Boundary Commission's main objection has been remedied to some extent since dual access has been determined to be feasible. Ms. Schue noted that this would be difficult to deny on the basis of traffic; she would recommend that, as part of the package, the street to the north be included and she would support annexa- tion under those terms. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 1981 Page 6