02/12/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e park land. Under any set of standards, he said eight acres would appear miniscule compared to 75 to 90 acres the City would hope to acquire to serve this level of development. He said a review of the basic reasons for allowing medium-density development on Goodpasture Island was the ability to provide access to this area by other means than auto, by bike/pedestrian, which would link that area to the major areas of Eugene. He said the substantial units would generate the need for that. Also, a normal part of a development process, the developers are required to improve a number of facilities, i.e., streets, sidewalks, etc. In no cases, it pretended that only those who live in the area will use those facilities. The primary benefit would be for those persons, but others will be benefitting. Requiring improvement of the pedestrian/bike system is not unique to this situ- ation and he gave examples of other developments, i.e., Shasta Park PUD on Barger and Beltline Road, which does serve other areas as well. Regarding the traffic signalization, and agreement for a common inter- section with K-Mart, he said those are two distinctly different problems. A report from the City Attorney's office has been requested regarding legality of requiring the traffic signalization (Condition 18). This would defer judgement as to whether or not an installation would be imposed until the preliminary approval stage. The City Attorney's opinion has not been submitted and there is no definitive requirement established that the traffic signal be installed. The City is simply investigating as to the legality of this condition which then will be decided at a later stage. e The condition does require investigation of an agreement with K-Mart regarding an intersection. He reviewed with Council page 6 of the attorney's memo. If such an agreement cannot be reached, then alternatives could be considered. If none could be found, it may be necessary that condition be rejected. Council's reversal of this condition would thus be premature at this time. - In response to a question from Mr. Obie, Mr. Saul said the traffic signal condition, if determined legal, either would or would not be imposed at Jhe time of preliminary approval, which is appealable to the City Council. Regarding the K-Mart intersection, the condition simply directs the appellants to attempt to reach an agreement with K-Mart. If K-Mart will not agree, then at the time of preliminary approval, there are a series of options: 1} submit a written document that K-Mart will not agree; and 2} realign and some how alter the traffic pattern of Delta Loop Road itself. In rebuttal, Mr. Gillis said the condition imposed is that an agree- ment must be made and submitted, not show proof that an attempt has been made to reach an agreement. He said it does not seem that condition can be met if K-Mart does not agree. He said the condition was imposed in November and immediately was appealed. He did not know how the appellants could show an attempt had been made to make an agreement. He reiterated all other conditions may be met, but the entire project lost if it cannot produce an agreement with K-Mart. Regarding City standards, he said historically, developers are faced 2/12/79--9 13