04/27/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Mr. Obie asked about the contribution of $20,000 and whether it was a staff recommendation that it should be accepted. Mr. Gleason said the City Council can accept gifts. It is the only body that can accept gifts on behalf of the City. However, the question is whether it is in the public interest to construct the project. The determination should be considered without the benefit of the contribution. Mr. Obie asked if the Spyglass "stub" was in place at the time Mr. Ward con- structed his house. Mr. Teitzel said that it was and that it was platted as a pedestrian-bicycle way. Mr. Obie asked about the alternative of going along the golf course. Mr. Ward said that the alternative was not satisfactory because of flying golf balls perhaps requiring a protective cage, and for privacy reasons. Mr. Hamel asked if Dr. Jarrett had been told it would be a private path and he had paid for it. He wondered if it is really a private path. Mr. Teitzel said the path was a requirement of the subdivision and was paid for by the property owners in the subdivision. It was intended as a bicycle path. Mr. Haws assumed that there was no easement recorded at this time. Mr. Teitzel said there was no easement on Mr. Ward's property. Council discussed a delay of two weeks in order for City staff and the property owners to discuss alternatives and compromises. When the subject comes back to council, there will not be a public hearing. e Ms. Miller indicated she thought this bikeway was an important link in the bicycle system. It cut distance and would encourage people to use alternate transportation. Ms. Wooten was also favorable to the bike path, although she did not like the condemnation of property. The City's goal of reducing auto- mobile trips by 30 percent was a factor. She favored waiting two weeks. Mr. Obie stated the basic issues of energy conservation, children's safety, reduction of pollution, encouraging bicycling, jogging, and walking. On the other hand, there was the question of privacy and taking of privacy, security, litter, use of eminent domain, and cost. This bicycle path could mean legal fees and four years to achieve. Mr. Obie did not believe that the path would attract outsiders. He did not know what he would decide and suggested a two- week delay in which staff would work on landscaping plans that could address the problems of privacy and security. He did not think Mr. Ward should pay solely for a mistake the City probably made. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to delay action for two weeks or a little longer if necessary and direct staff to work with the involved parties to reconcile differences, and to have staff work on possible landscaping suggestions. Ms. Smith said that she strongly supports bicycle paths, but the council needs to take the whole idea of condemnation very seriously. She hoped the problem could be resolved in two weeks. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 27, 1981 Page 9