CC Minutes - 04/28/03 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Klein said that the proceeding was considered quasi-judicial. The council must make a decision on the basis of the evidence in the record. He advised the council that as decision makers, it should have no discussions about the topic with anyone outside the council setting. Councilor Meisner noted he had received several e-mails and letters, none of which addressed the question of the appropriate procedures before the council. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Gordon Anslow, 4493 Paddock Drive, noted the testimony he submitted earlier to the Planning Commission. He said that even if the council upheld the Planning Director's decision, and the commission's unanimous decision in support of the application, the City would still have given the appellants an opportunity to comment. Mr. Anslow hoped the council would support those decisions, which were made on the merits of the criteria. Mr. Anslow asked that those offering testimony and identifying themselves as civil engineers also identify their areas of expertise. Mr. Anslow said he wished to correct an assertion that his company refused to meet with the residents. He said that he had met with the neighbors on site and visited Lyndell Wilken's property to discuss her concerns relative to drainage. He received no invitation to meet since then. He said that while the company remained willing to meet, the neighbors should not expect the company to abandon its lawful use of the property and public street. The company proposed the layout shown in consideration of the neighbors' concerns. It was out of the company's hands as to what the City would require in terms of off-site road and stormwater improvements. Those were the responsibility of the City, and contrary to the applicant's statements, the company was not liable for the City's determinations of what was appropriate. The buyers of the houses to be built would pay for the public improvements required, and all would have the same recourse to the City for the proper performance of those facilities. Mr. Anslow hoped that after the three new homes were built, sold, and occupied, councilors would visit the development as an example of good infill and listen to the comments of new residents and neighbors about any lessons to be learned from the experience. Scott Olson, Civil Engineer, Branch Engineering, 1127 B Street, Springfield, supported the applicant and the use of the standard subdivision process. He said he supported the recommendation of Planning Director Jan Childs. He said the site was not without design issues, but if the community desired infill development, it would be hard to find sites as appropriate as the one in question. He thought the issues on the site could be easily addressed through the standard subdivision process, which was more than adequate to protect the neighborhood and City's interests. Mr. Olson pointed out the development activity that would occur on the portion of the site above 701 feet was the connection of the roof drain from the existing house to a new detention facility, leaving less runoff than currently taking place. The PUD process would result MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 6 Regular Meeting