CC Minutes - 07/10/06 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to the City of Springfield and that it was “obviously above and beyond” what the MWMC needed. She opined it would be “wise stewardship” to retain the property. City Manager Taylor asked the City Council to resist the amendment for the following reasons: 1. It would require an additional partition; 2. It would renege on the City’s initial commitment to the MWMC; 3. It would add more cost, both for the cost of the partition and for what the City would be assessed as part of the Local Improvement District (LID) for River Avenue, given that this would give MWMC a smaller footprint. Councilor Pryor said while he could appreciate the desire to retain property that might not be needed by the MWMC, he was also aware that this was part of the original deal, and this deal involved a variety of funding sources. He questioned the notion of MWMC doing something with the property that the City of Eugene would not do with it, such as developing it. Mr. Ruffier assured the council that the property outside the fence line was planned to be open space and there were no plans to develop it. In fact, he pointed out that the site currently operated under a CUP that specified that this land would be maintained as open space. Councilor Pryor was not persuaded that the City needed to preserve this land in order to protect it. Mr. Ruffier reminded the council that the options before it included the transfer of easements necessary to maintain the bikeway. In response to a question from Councilor Ortiz, City Manager Taylor stated that the change would not affect the properties that were not abutting the road. Councilor Bettman said that as she researched one of the zoning land use code updates, she learned that no CUPs had been denied in over ten years. She alleged that whatever the applicant wanted could be provided for or permitted with some conditions and the conditions were flexible. She asked if Mr. Ruffier could guarantee that the property would not be developed and that it would be preserved in open space in perpetuity. Mr. Ruffier replied that he could not. Councilor Bettman opined that the amendment was a “good compromise.” Roll call vote; the amendment failed, 4:3; councilors Bettman, Taylor, and Ortiz voting in favor. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, City Manager Taylor affirmed that the motion could include language that would indicate that the City was retaining its easements for bicycle paths and City facilities. Councilor Kelly offered a friendly amendment to the motion that would add language indicating that the City would retain easements for bicycle paths and City facilities. Councilor Solomon accepted the friendly amendment, as did the second. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 11 Regular Meeting