01/24/1990 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Mr. Bennett expressed concern with the County Commissioners lack of support for the construction of a bike path in this area. Ms. Jones said that in light of the compromises that have been made, it is unclear whether the County will continue to oppose the concept of a bike path. If the commissioners are firm in their opposition to a bike path, the two jurisdictions may need to go through the MPC process. Ms. Schue also pointed out that both the City and the County must be in agreement before a bike path can be shown in the refinement plan. Mr. Bennett recommended that before a formal MPC process is undertaken, the council approach the commissioners informally to discuss this issue and represent the council's view. Ms. Ehrman said that while the council is by no means mandating bike path construction, it is important to have the bike path as an option. Mr. Holmer suggested that he and Ms. Schue represent the council at an informal meeting with staff and the commissioners to address those places in the plan where there is a distinction between the board and council position. O. Revisions Land M Councilors had no comments on Revisions Land M. E. Revision N Ms. Jones said that Revision N revolves around the issue of replacement rights for existing buildings within the Glenwood Greenway setback. The language in the compromise revision states that as long as the use has not changed in the building that was destroyed, it could be rebuilt on the exact location if the owner goes through the greenway permit process. Mr. Bennett commented that wording should be included in this paragraph suggesting that if a structure were destroyed, and if there were another way to rebuild which was consistent with the plan, this would be encouraged. Mr. Miller expressed concern with the possible differing interpretation that could arise in using the word "encouraged." Bill Gary, City Attorney, commented that the legal right of the property owner to reconstruct on the exact location is not mandated by the Greenway Act and is not required by State law. F. Revisions 0, P, and Q Councilors agreed to these revisions. G. Revisions R, S, and T Ms. Jones indicated that Revision R, Revision S, and Revision T are concerned with the construction of sidewalks along Franklin Boulevard; staff and Mr. Moulton have agreed upon more general wording for both of these implementation strategies. Ms. Jones said that it is important to make it MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 1990 Page 3