Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comment (3)5283 W Amazon Dr Eugene, OR 97405 27 October 2015 Eugene Planning Commission RE: Chamotee Trails PUD Tentative Plan Tax Map: 18-03-20-23, Tax Lot 1100 W Amazon Dr. Dear People, I am writing with regard to the Chamotee Trails PUD Tentative Plan. Our property is adjacent to the planned development, separated by the City right-of-way labeled "Vivian Way" on the maps. I do not oppose this proposal in general, although I do have conditions that I consider to be necessary to moving this proposal forward. These include: 1). Fire Safety and Egress: The addition of 10 (or 11?) houses to West Amazon Dr will bring the number of houses using the current single egress from the neighborhood to 44 (or 46, if already established parcels are developed). There is only one route of egress at this point and that is uphill to the intersection of Fox Hollow, Owl Road, and W. Amazon. Last summer was more than ample demonstration of the serious danger involved. A major fire erupted on August 2014 on the property southwest of the Owl, Fox Hollow, W. Amazon intersection. It was clearly visible from downtown and could have been the disaster we all fear in dry weather in South Eugene. The fire was expertly handled by the Fire Department and involved multiple vehicles, road closure, and helicopter service to control it. However, this effort closed the intersection and necessarily staged the equipment to carry out the fire fight there. They then alerted people on W. Amazon, Foxboro, Pine Forest and Senger Lane to prepare for evacuation. There is no other way out, so that was particularly concerning to those who were here at the time. The City has previously approved these developments without arranging for alternative egress, despite there being an explicit condition on development that it not include more than 19 houses with single egress. While each PUD added less than 19 houses (and the Walter Development also adds less than 19 houues), the standard to ensure safe fire egress is meaningless if it doesn't apply to aggregate development. The proposed addition would exacerbate an already serious safety issue for the neighborhood in the event of fire. I have talked with the Fire Chief and personnel from the Bonneville Power Administration regarding access to the power line right-of-way and both have assured me that we could get access through the gate at the downhill end of W. Amazon. At this point, however, there are multiple locks on that gate and how we would get through it in an emergency has not been addressed. After that gate, the right-of-way, en route to Fox Hollow near Donald, crosses at least two privately held parcels which are currently fenced with locked gates. One of these, owned by Scot and Cecilia Forest, could be easily passed through, or the gate locks cut if necessary with their permission. I have tried to contact the owners of the other parcel which is gated and includes a fence topped with razor wire, but I have had no success in getting them to respond. I am not sure who those owners are. There must be a solution to the egress problem before I can offer support to this plan. As this situation has been created because the City did not recognize its own guidelines regarding egress for earlier development, the solution should not fall on the developer. However, this must be addressed by the City, with the neighbors, with the property owners and Bonneville before building proceeds. 2). The plan includes a "detention facility" to manage water run-off from the property. I know that Branch Engineering did a study (including placing sensors on our property) to determine the best location for that facility. Those measurements were taken during a period of relatively light rainfall and concluded that no significant water runs off the current property. I have lived here for 40 years and can assure you that, although I do not have a degree in hydraulic engineering, I do know that water from this property in times of heavy rain comes directly into my back yard (I have created my own diversion for that issue), as well as seeping from the hill to the south of where the detention facility is planned. I do hope that the detention facility is sufficient to handle the run-off from the additional roof and street paving that will be involved in the development. Mr. Walter has assured me that he will work with me to make sure that it does. I would like assurance as a condition of development that an increase in the flow that will be placed on our property be assessed over a period of at least 5 years (longer if there is a continued drought) and that the developer and the City agree to work with me in the creation of a second detention facility on my property if further channeling or the creation of additional wetlands occur as a result of run-off from this development. 3). Vivian Way appears on the map, although Walter Development has chosen not to use it for access to the property. I very much appreciate their sensitivity to the intrusion that opening Vivian Way would create for us. Vivian Way cannot be used to solve the egress problem (the slope up to Fox Hollow would limit that and the end point would still be at the intersection in question). I would suggest to the City that it vacate the right-of-way and add half of it to the each of the two adjacent properties, thus returning it to the tax rolls. Or, if the City wishes to retain this "phantom street," it should maintain it in keeping with the standards of the State's urban-forest transition zone requirements. It currently contains potentially dangerous ladder fuels, dead/dying trees and significant downed timber (some of which has fallen on the developer's property). I know that Mr. Walter has offered to remove one large pine tree from Vivian Way. I would note that there is another seriously leaning tree just up hill from that one which will also fall in about the same line at some point (and probably uproot trees on our property). 4). Mr. Walter has assured me that the houses to be built on the four lots immediately adjacent to Vivian Way will be constructed toward the uphill side of those lots (toward the new access drive). I would prefer to have this assurance made explicit in writing and that the setback from the eastern property line (Vivian Way) be at least 30 feet. 5). The proposed system of pumping sewage up hill to reach the current sewer on Foxboro Lane makes very little sense to me, particularly because any failure of that system will flow downhill. A better solution would be to connect to the existing sewer line below the development on Pine Forest. I understand that is more complicated and has potential cost implications for other property owners, but it would be a gravity system, rather than relying on pumping. Thank you. I plan on attending the hearing on November 4. [Submitted by email] Richard W. Zeller