New Search
" RECENEI) <br /> ~tiii'. - ~ Viral <br /> AGREEMENT TO MAINTAIN DEPOSIT OF FU DS <br /> (TO FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT OF SON BLAZE VIL AG <br /> . I F EUGENE • <br /> • .PLANNING DEPARTMENT <br /> • <br /> TIIIS AGREEII4ENT is made by and between Blazer Construction Company, Inc., an Oregon <br /> wiporation (`Blazer"), the City of Eugene, an Oregon municipal corporation ("the City"), and <br /> Centennial Bank, a subsidiary of.Centennial Bancorp ("D.epository'~. . <br /> RECITALS: . <br /> <br /> ~ 1. SON BLAZE VILLAGE PUD. Blazer is the owner and developer of the real property which • <br /> has pending tentative PUD approval from the City under the title "Son Blaze Village PUD" ("the <br /> PUD"), more particularly described as follows: <br /> l.l. CITY PUD FILE. Blazer's application io the City for tentative PUD approval of the.PUD is <br /> filed as PD 99-11; Z 99-12. The application was approved, with conditions, by the•Eugene Hearings • <br /> • Official. The Eugene Hearings Offictial's findings were appealed to the Eugene Plaruring <br /> Comrnission, which upheld the approval of the PUD, with conditions: These approvals constituted _ <br /> final approval by the City of the tentative PUD application. The City's approval was appealed to the <br /> •Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals as LUBA No. 94-186. LUBA affirmed the approvals, with a <br /> remand to the City as to an offsite transportation issue, f nding "...the, city's error was in approving <br /> the disputed PUD before it secured a modified March 19,1999 permit or a new perrriit that would . <br /> authorize the disputed PUD to connect to the Glenwood interchange. We (LUBA)'are offered no <br /> reason to believe that ODOT could not approve such a new or amended permit". p. 28. <br /> 1.2. NEW OR AMENDED ODOT PERMIT. The City (the applicant oz the 1999.permit) requested <br /> that the 1999 peimit be extended to pernut construction of the planned improvements. ODOT <br /> denied that request. ODOT now takes the position that it will not accept, and therefor$ not approve, <br /> . any application for a pernut for the PUD itself; rather ODOT has required that a riew Traffic Impact <br /> Analysis ("TIA"} be first prepared and approved by ODOT and the City as to content generated by <br /> the entire Laurel Hill' Area, the entire Glenwood BoulevardlGlenwood Drive Area and all <br /> Background traffic affecting the Glenwood interchange, rather than the more limited or amended <br /> permit clearly envisioned by LUBA based upon the evidence and representations before LU$A at <br /> the time of its decision. Blazer caused the TIA to be prepared at its cost and expense. The TIA, <br /> prepared by JRH Transportation Engineers is dated Aprit 9, 200 Y, together with an • <br /> amendmentlsupplerneni. In addition, ODOT has required an intergovernmental agreement be <br /> entered into between the City and ODOT covering the improvements to the Glenwood interchange <br /> and adjacent transportation facilities_ <br /> 2. ~ COOPIRA.TIVE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT. ODOT prepared and presented an 1 <br /> initial Draft of a Cooperative Improvement Agreement on or about August 14, 2001. Asa <br /> precoridition to entering into the Coop Agreement, the City requires that Blazer provide financial <br /> assurances to the City that funds will be available from private parties to make the transportation <br /> improvements which ODO'I' and the City consider necessary and appropriate to allow the PUD to <br /> - L - <br /> _ _ <br /> <br />