CC Minutes - 10/12/98 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

industrialized zone. She said she did not have any real objections to the vacation requests, but she said she was concerned that along with the development of A & K and the vacations, a large number of trucks would use neighborhood streets and would reduce the quality of life in the neighborhood. She said it was important that the City prove to the residents that infill development can occur in a positive way that maintains the quality of life of neighborhood residents. She said she believed it would be possible for residents to work with the applicant and come to agreement about barriers to truck use of neighborhood streets. Ms. Piercy said she was also concerned about the adequacy of the public notice given regarding the vacation applications. She said posted notices in the neighborhood were deficient and that those living a block away from the affected areas were not notified by mail. Larry Thorp, 644 "A" Street, Springfield, stated that he represented the applicant, Ron Anderson. He pointed out that A & K Development had completed constructed of a 71,000- square-foot manufacturing facility which would generate the truck traffic of concern to neighborhood residents. He said the vacations were intended to facilitate new construction of an office building and parking lot element of the development. The office and parking lot development was not related to the traffic issues described by the neighborhood residents. He said the areas for which the vacations were requested were an un-constructed street and alley. He stated that the owner was willing to work with the City to provide solutions to the concerns of area residents. He urged the council not to "hold hostage" the vacation requests because the requests were not related to the truck traffic issues. Ron Anderson, 364 Agate Street, stated that he was the owner of A & K Development and the applicant for the vacations. He said he believed the operation of his business could be made compatible with and even improve the neighborhood. He said he had exerted considerable effort to reduce the noise, sight, and ecological impacts of his business upon the neighborhood. He said his business would likely generate less traffic than had resulted from the previous business in the same location. He said he supported the use of signs and street barriers to prevent trucks using neighborhood streets. He pointed out that the same trucks would be accessing his business repeatedly and that drivers unfamiliar with its location would be unlikely. He said he wanted to work with residents of the neighborhood to reach a mutually acceptable solution to their concerns. Marjorie Scott, 29290 McTavish Lane, stated that she owned property adjoining that used by A & K Development and that she was concerned that the proposed vacations would make it difficult to develop her property to its fullest potential. She said she appreciated the improvements made to the area by Mr. Anderson and that she would seek to work with him, but she was concerned about the negative impacts on her ability to develop her property. She said the vacation requests should have been made before development of the A & K property. Brian Weaver, 1438 West 4th Avenue, stated that he was concerned that all residents of the neighborhood affected by the proposed development were not notified by mail of the vacation applications. He said that posted notices do not provide adequate notifications. He thought the posters were advertisements for a garage sale. He displayed an enlarged version of a map distributed with the agenda of the meeting on page 252 and described errors and omissions on it--3rd Avenue does not go through Taylor Street, Taylor Street does not go past 2nd Avenue, two companies producing traffic are not identified. He said he was concerned that truck traffic signs proposed by the applicant would not be adequate to prevent trucks from using neighborhood MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 12, 1998 Page 5 7:30 p.m.