12/14/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

opposes the rezoning because there is no access and it would cause a severe traffic problem. The roads are substandard. Spring Boulevard is 16 feet wide e with no room for sidewalks and it has a steep grade. Studies indicate it is impossible to improve this road. They are requesting that more planning be done to look at another means of access. There are already 27 houses on Capitol Drive with eight to nine more lots that could be developed. They would like the Planning Commission to consider all 67 acres at one time. These are all the acres that were noted for development in the ridgeline and they feel that they should not be considered in a random manner. Some mistakes have been made in the past, but that is no reason to continue making them. Excess runoff increases as more houses are built. He asked if the sewer would prove to be inadequate for the area over time. The neighborhood association can find no w~ys to improve traffic flow over time. The association also understands that the project under development will consider access and traffic on Capitol Drive, but he does not know if that is an accurate statement. The total land owned by Alpert is about 4.3 acres. Some of this land is not being considered for rezoning. There is land on the east side of the ridge that has been developed where the sewage is being pumped uphill. Dorothy Dougher, 2840 Alta Vista Court, said that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of this request and they apparently feel that those who live in the area should expect to live with the hazards of hillside living. There needs to be mutual consideration. Capitol Drive is a substandard road. One large vehicle would block access for a fire truck, creating an unsafe situation. Robert Grodin, 2830 Capitol Drive, noted agreement with the previous speakers. He asked when, in the process, traffic considerations are reviewed by the e City. Speaking in favor: Peter Thompson, 840 Lawrence, stated that he had submitted information previ- ously to the Planning Commission. The original request before the council in the past was for annexing the total property. This request is only for property to the ridgeline. The applicants met with neighborhood people at the time of the original application and withdrew their application to look for other access, as is indicated in the staff notes. No other way was found for access, except through Hendricks Park. There are only two parcels remaining that are b u il dab 1 e . Roads, sewers, water, and utilities are already serviced from the west. Any remaining property will have to be served from the east. There is a problem with traffic, but there is no way out of it. The traffic situation will be reviewed during the PUD process. Page II-A-19 of the staff notes shows that the existing streets will provide access with no other options available. It is part of Eugene's policy to infill, and they would appreciate approval of this request. On the map, a number of ways are shown as possible road routes. There are a number of loop systems for emergency vehicle access. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Croteau stated that there had been some testimony regarding the maximum amount of land that could be annexed. There are two lots to the south of this property which could be annexed, tax lots 400 and 200. There is a possibility e of perhaps 30 additional units in the future. The South Hills Study governs MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 14, 1981 Page 2