Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Ms. Nathanson said that there seemed to be the possibility of a win-win situation, where the re- <br />development and expansion of industrial uses can occur while preserving the residential livability <br />of the neighborhood. She said she wanted solutions to be identified. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he agreed it would be helpful to receive an impact analysis. He posed the <br />question: who pays for the industrial impacts upon residents? <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he did not believe simply meeting the legal requirements for public notice <br />was adequate, and that the City should provide notice above and beyond the legal requirements. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he would like information about: 1) the use of Chambers Street for the sole <br />entrance and exit of the property without using Almaden Street; 2) about the effectiveness of <br />signs in preventing trucks from using neighborhood streets; 3) about the possibilities of traffic <br />calming improvements like, diverters or protruding curbs and corners at 4th Avenue and Almaden <br />Street, 4th Avenue at Taylor Street, and 3rd Place and 3rd Street; 4) about whether traffic <br />requirements are transferred onto any subsequent owners of the A & K property; 5) about the list <br />of requests for traffic devices throughout the City; and 6) whether or not the money to be <br />received from A & K Development for the assessed value of the rights-of-way to be vacated <br />could go toward constructing traffic calming devices. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee expressed appreciation to the applicant and concerned neighborhood residents for their <br />"civilized" presentations. He said he believed issues related to public notice were complicated by <br />requirements of State law. He asked that information be provided about whether the City could <br />exceed the notification procedures required by State law. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee said that he was concerned about how a person with speech or hearing disabilities could <br />be provided information from the City over the telephone. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee supported the idea of the council discussing possible solutions to the traffic problems as <br />part of its deliberations about the vacation requests. He said he would like to see a single <br />solution document be agreed upon by the councilors. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart commended the applicant and neighborhood residents for seeking to find a mutually <br />acceptable solution to the issues surrounding the vacation requests and the development that <br />was occurring. He said he believed A & K Development was an ideal business for the location it <br />was to occupy-it purchased supplies locally, it employed 130 persons, it produced products <br />which were exported from the area, it produced "clean" products, and its owner lived in Eugene. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr asked that information be provided about the number of truck trips the business <br />anticipated generating each day; about the type of trucks that would be used; about whether it <br />was necessary for Almaden Street to be used by trucks serving the business; and about the cost <br />of diverters and other potential design elements which could prevent trucks from entering <br />neighborhood streets. He said he would also appreciate receiving a clearer aerial photograph of <br />the area in question. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar asked if an application for a vacation was a land use decision. Mr. Kullby replied <br />that such decisions were guided by non-land use sections of State law. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar asked if there was a legal reason why the council could not consider traffic issues <br />in conjunction with the vacation applications. City Attorney Glenn Klein replied that he would <br /> <br />MINUTES-Eugene City Council October 12, 1998 Page 8 <br />7:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />