01/24/1972 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\ I I ! I I ~.: I I I I I I i I I I I I I I Planning Director said the vacation is required as a part of platting. Mr. Teague questioned the value to the City of the area proposed for vaca- tion as a small park or playground, saying it seemed to be a sizeable piece of property to be deeding into pri vate ownership. Staff explained no value would accrue to adjacent property, since lots were already created and improved. Manager said maintenance of property alone would be nv.re of a liability than use of the land; it is not la.rge enough fo.r a .rec.reationa1 a.rea and if owne.rship is retained it would have to be landscaped and maintained as a landscaped a.rea. Also, there is the possibi1i ty of assessments fo.r any futu.re imp.rovements which would have to be assumed by the City since lots a.re ~ow se{!la.rated f.rom the st.reet by this owne.rship. M.r. Teague nvved seconded by Mrs. Bea1 to have the prope.rty appraised before action is taken on the vacation .request. Upon question from the Manager, it was ag.reed an informal appraisal by Ci ty staff would be sufficient rather than requesting a formal appraisal. A vote was taken on the 1lIOtion, and nvtion carried. . ! Mr. Williams conunented that since the staff already said the property is worthless, it would seem a staff appraisal would be no different than the recommendation to vacate. Manager said the staff does not feel it is "worthless," only that it is of no value to the City. Further disclJSsion followed with regard to value of land proposed for dedication to private USli with general agreement additional information would be of benefit. The Manager .. said an app.raisa1 would gi ve the square foot value of the land, and Mayor re- marked it would also give soma comparison to benefit the City would be re- ceiving from the vacation in not having to maintain the p.roperty. (See ~ction page 12 these minutes under C. B. 9577, Ordinances) 4. Portion of Easement, Lot 11, Block 4, 1st Addition to Cow Palace (Jeppeson Acres Road west of Norkenzie), Barker {Planning Conunission Report December 28, 1971 - The Planning Director explained construction of a building encroached upon the easement. When the property was platted requirements for utilities were not complete and it was felt there would be future need fo.r the easement. Planning Conunission recommended vacation of that portion upon which the bu.6ld- ing was constructed. (See action page 12 these minutes under C.B.9S78, Ordinances) Conun 1/12/72 Pub Hrng Conun 1/12/72 Pub Hrng I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I S. Easement near Hawthorne between Fairfield and Baxter, excluding south 2S feet, Sorgenfri - Planning Commission Report Decembe.r 28, 1971 - Planning Director explained additional easement was conside.red necessary for storm sewer construction, but since a culvert was instalJed the extra width will not be needed. The additional property would provide land for a build- ing project. The south 2S feet is being retained for utilities, and a 20";'foot easement remains on the west. (See action page 12 these minutes under C.B. 9579~Ordinances) 6. Easement lots 13 and 18 Pine Rid e Estates north of Mahala Drive W. H. D111s Planning Commiss1on Report January 10. 1972 - Plann1ng COmm1SS10n recammended approval. (See action page 12 these minutes under C.B.9580, Ordinances. ) Conun 1/12/72 P!lb IIrng II - ItelllS Considered With One Motion. Previously discussed at Committee meetings on January 12 and January 19, 1972. Minutes of th~e meetings are printed below in italics. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Bealthat Items A through V below be fiPproved, affirmed. and filed as noted. A. Lane Countll Communi tll Action AgenCll, Ci tll Representation - The restructuring of this AgenCll as a' County-operated program calls for an Administering Board of 21 members: 1/3 public officials or their designee; 1/3 low-income representatives; and 1/3 from private sector, as detailed in a letter presented to the Council from the Program Director. Eugene has been designated to receive one seat on, the Board, and the' Council was asked to consider the appointment of one ofi ts members and convey the choice to Lane County commissioners as soon as possible. Mayor Anderson colllllSnted ~at Councilman Mohr had represented the City when the AgenCll was operating as Lane Human Resources, and Mrs,. CaJIlpbell suggested Hr.Mohr's continuing as the City's representative. I . I Mr. Williams l/IOved seconded by Mr.' Teague that the Mayor appoint a Council member to . represent the City on the Administering Board of Lane County Communi ty Action AgenCll. Hotion carried. COIllll 1/12/72 Apprc;)ve . ~. Lighting, Central Business District Loop Streets - .Council members had been provided wi th tabulation of 12 proposals for lighting the mall loop streets, showing number of poles and fixtures, estimated cost~ patter usage, and capital cost. Hanager read I staff's report for recommending J'lan I on the tabulation: Fewer poles and least' cost for desired lighting level of 3. B footcandles. He said the Eugene DowntoWn Associa- tion favored a 3. B footcandle lighting level, together with poles that will tie in with general building "design in the area and. which will be aesthetically Pfeasing. '. 11 1/~4/7~ - 4