New Search
To: WEISS Carolyn J <br /> Cc: COREY Kurt A; MUIR Susan L; ROYER Russ C; Jody Jones; DRiddle @SenecaSawmill.com <br /> Subject: Gillespie Butte Park Letter Response <br /> Hi Carolyn, <br /> Thanks for your response to my July 25th letter. Your letter August 29th letter raises <br /> several interesting issues /concerns. <br /> 1. Based on you response it seems the design team has gotten conflicting information from <br /> varies City departments. We were advised to get approval of any development we needed to <br /> vacate the existing paper only street and develop a street plan that is a continuation of <br /> street as built by City. I continue to believe Planning and Public Works staff initial <br /> direction was correct. In that there was a reason for the way the City built the street, <br /> dead end to east versus the street dead ending to south. (Avoided steep slopes, while <br /> offering access to the <br /> park) If the park was private property the owner would be required to 'accept' the <br /> continuation of the public street on through the property and without compensation by the <br /> City. How will the City exempt itself from this regulation? <br /> 2. I did not know that the City's Site Review Planning approval of the proposed <br /> development rested on not losing any park land and providing a "substantial" benefit to <br /> the park. I'm not sure that is correct. Please let me know the authority and how this <br /> would work procedurally. <br /> 3. How do we proceed given the situation? <br /> >. In that this City Park is basically land locked except for the frontage that is the <br /> width of Right of Way dead end of a public street. <br /> (Pointed east) <br /> >. Our proposed street design is a continuation of this Public Street as built by the <br /> City. If we had to reconfigure the end of the existing street, (remove the curve, lower <br /> grade, bank of curve, etc) including building a new drive access into the park will City <br /> reimburse my client for this unanticipated (Unnecessary) off site work? <br /> >. What else can we do? Can City impose a granting of an exception to City's own street <br /> standards, when no exemption is being sought? (Require a steeper slope coming straight up <br /> the slope or in alternative deny <br /> approval) Can such an exception be based on not losing any park land? <br /> (When street was designed to provide for such a "lose" street <br /> continuation) <br /> Based on the situation what does the City want? We have no additional proposal. I'd like <br /> to heard Public works ideas as alternative as to how we can meet City street design <br /> standards and where the City will create a parking lot for the park meeting all the varies <br /> standards (ADA, Gillespie Butte -land form standards, etc) Is a City park development <br /> exempt from Gillespie Butte Development Standards? If the design team has missed <br /> something, we'd welcome Public Works ideas. I to would be open to a meeting. Would a <br /> meeting on site be of help? <br /> Larry E. Reed, Principal <br /> JRH, Land Use Planning Division <br /> PH (541) 687 -1081 <br /> Original Message <br /> From: WEISS Carolyn J [mailto:carolyn.j.weiss @ci.eugene.or.us] <br /> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:56 AM <br /> To: Larry Reed <br /> Cc: COREY Kurt A; MEDLIN Johnny R; ROYER Russ C <br /> Subject: Gillespie Butte Park <br /> Hello Larry, <br /> Attached is a letter in response to a letter you sent to me on July 25th. I have placed a <br /> signed copy of the letter in the mail and you should receive that soon. Please feel free <br /> to contact me to discuss. <br /> 2 <br />