02/12/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

with all kinds of conditions. many of which seem to be semi-legal. He said there is no State authority which permits the City to do what ~ staff is requesting regarding dedication of park land. Nothing in ,., the City Codes or other standards indicates, in advance, what those standards are going to be. He felt those were ad hoc decisions and unfair. There is no specific City ordinance that says the developer should dedicate property along the river or build a pathway or signal system at its own expense. Public hearing was closed, there being no futher testimony presented. Ms. Smith questioned Condition 16 in that the wording the agreement must be agreed upon contingent upon further legal interpretation. She wondered whether or not that condition should be researched further before being imposed on the developers. Mr. Saul said the staff had recommended the condition that the developer be responsible for installation of a signal at the request of Lane County. The Hearings Official imposed that condition, dependent on the City Attorney's opinion whether or not it was legal. The condition was then amended to defer the decision to protect the applicants. Regarding the K-Mart agreement, he said the City Council does have the power to modify as it wished. The most ,reasonable course would be to indicate that evidence of an agreement or refusal by K-Mart to consider such agree- ment be submitted at the preliminary approval stage. The concern of traffic congestion and location of the intersection seems to be val ide - Ms. Smith supported the problem regarding the traffic, but was concerned regarding the process of imposing a condition for an agreement that may be unable to be resolved. Mr. Saul said if the Council is so concerned, it could amend that to say that both issues of the agreement and the traffic signalization could be further reviewed at the time of preli- minaryapproval. That would still protect the right of subsequent appeal to the Council. He noted the County has absolute control over access to Goodpasture Island Road. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to deny the appeal and uphold the Hearings Official's conditions imposed for approval of diagrammatic stage for the Goodpasture Island PUD. Mr. Haws expressed concern about developing Eugene as Eugenean's want it to be developed. He wanted to make sure this development is compatible with Eugene's standards, and that it not turn into some kind of monstrosity. He urged Council to deny the appeal. Mr. Obie said he did not find the conditions imposed by the Hearings Official unreasonable. He noted the high standards for development in Eugene. Requiring the agreement with K-Mart he felt at the present time mignt be unneccesary. He hoped staff, in the future, would consider the difficulty of getting two private parties to agree on a City-imposed condition. Regarding a traffic signal, he was willing to accept the delay for the City Attorney's opinion as to whether or not it was legal. He said the difficulty came as to where the systems develop- ~ ment tax might apply. Regarding the signalization, Mr. Delay said 1Lf 2/12/79--10