02/12/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e willing to go to require private land owners to pay for costs of improvements that, in the past, have been borne by taxpayers. He said State and Federal funds are available for the City's Greenway Plan. He was concerned regarding PUD requirements and not having foreknowledge of what conditions would be expected for improvement of the property. He felt these might be ad hoc conditions, as he did not see them specified in the City Codes and, thus, would not be applied to all property owners. The requirement for dedication and building of a pedestrian bike path by the owners seems to exceed the City's authority. Another issue left unresolved was how much footage was involved. He wondered where the bank is located and perhaps the location for the dedication might be different than a location at the water's edge. Rather than 50 feet from the bank, it might be 150 feet which could create a no man's island, which could not be used for anything. He said clarification was needed for the exact location. e Regarding the bike path being a policy requirement, he said the pri- vate land owner should not be required to pay for constructing such when the City and State can provide the funds to do that. Requiring the owner to pay for traffic signalization could be applied to any group in any neighborhood in any part of the city. He said when signalization is required and requested, those who benefit should have to pay. Costs are substantial, and he noted it could exceed $100,000. He felt the signalization would benefit more people than just those who would be in the project. He could not find anything in the City Code that did authorize requiring a private land owner to pay for costs of signals on a city street. A further concern was the condition that an agreement be made between the developer and K-Mart. He said if every other condition were met, but an agreement could not be reached with K-Mart, then the entire project would fail. The appellants cannot give the assurance that a private party would agree regarding the location of signals and relo- cation of the intersection. He said they would make a good faith attempt and try to come to an agreement, but could not assure that K-Mart would be willing to negotiate an agreement on changing the intersections. He felt the Oregon State Statutes should be examined for a specific State policy dealing with the Willamette Greenway and bike path/trail construction funding. It seems incongruous when there are specific State policies and guidelines that suggest these be purchased by the City or State, that land owners should have these conditions imposed in order to develop their land, when the State legislature has deter- mined it should be paid from general tax revenues or tax sharing monies. Those speaking against the appeal were: - 7/ 2/12/79--7