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

Home Browse Search

Mr. McDonald stated that he had personally contacted the developers after the commission's public hearing to invite them to a meeting, but they were not interested. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Lane County Homebuilders Association, said that the issue was the best process to employ, not drainage or traffic problems. She reviewed the costs of the PUD as contrasted to the subdivision process and noted the many more professionals required. The PUD process also took longer. Ms. Cuellar maintained that the cost to the neighborhood of the subdivision process was that the neighbors lose an opportunity to deliver three minutes of oral testimony in front of the Planning Commission. Ms. Cuellar pointed out that under the subdivision process the neighbors could still offer written comments, and suggested that when addressing technical issues, written testimony was far more valuable than oral testimony. She pointed out that the City staff would dictate traffic solutions and stormwater solutions and that the residents would not negotiate those issues with the developer. That would not change if the PUD process was used. Patricia Friskoff, 3087 Whitbeck Boulevard, disagreed with Ms. Cuellar about the benefits of the PUD process. She expressed concern about the possible negative impacts of the development on the neighborhood environment. She was also concerned about how the City addressed the blind bend in the road and the drainage impacts from the development, and wanted the greatest diligence possible be taken so the situation did not worsen. David Monk, 3720 Emerald Street, vice president of the Southeast Neighbors, thought the concerns expressed by neighbors regarding the development were well-taken. He also believed that the PUD process was more appropriate for the site because of the elevation of the property explaining the difference between the two processes was the public hearing. The South Hills Study required a PUD for elevations above 701 feet because of the challenge of building on steep slopes with difficult drainage. Mr. Monk characterized Ms. Cuellar's remarks about the three minutes of public testimony as a red herring, and said it was important for the council to appreciate the public process for its importance to the neighbors. He said that it was important for the City to hear from those familiar with the area, and that would not happen unless the PUD process was used. Mr. Monk noted the recent increase in the fees for appeals, which he believed discouraged the public process. He believed that the burden of proof lay with the developer, and that the developer should pay the additional costs necessitated by the PUD review process. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing and called for council comments and questions. Councilor Nathanson said that in the past few years, she had become aware of two serious situations that resulted from storm drainage problems. She asked who would be liable for damage, the City or the developer. Mr. Klein said that the answer depended on many factors and did not have enough facts to assign liability at this time. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 8 Regular Meeting