Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> \ <br /> Eugene, Oregon <br /> Council Chamber <br /> September 25, 1972 <br /> Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the <br /> . meeting held on September 11, 1972 - was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson <br /> at 7:30 p.m. onSeptemoer 25, 1972 in the Council Chamber with the' following councilmen present: <br /> Mr. Mohr, Mrs. Beal, Messrs. McDonald, Teague, Williams, Hershner, Mrs. Campbell, and Mr. <br /> Bradshaw. <br /> I - Public Hearings <br /> A. Vacation Alley Between 22nd and 23rd from Patterson east (YMCA) - Recommended by the <br /> Planning Commission July 10, 1972. <br /> Council Bill. No~. 84 - Vacating alley between 22nd and 23rd from Patterson east <br /> was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there <br /> being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. <br /> Manager explained that vacation of this alley will permit construction of an apartment <br /> building in accordance with an agreement between the YMCA and School District 4J. <br /> School District has now withdrawn its approval of the project. YMCA has indicated <br /> its desire to proceed with the vacation. Manager suggested withholding final passage <br /> I of the ordinance, if it is decided to approve the vacation, to allow negotiation with <br /> the applicant on valuation of assessment for the property vacated. <br /> I Bruce Cross, president of the YMCA, asked approval of the vacation, saying the "Y" is <br /> . exploring alternative ways of developing the property. He said there is still in ef- <br /> ./ <br /> feet a School Board resolution ~hich would permit apartment construction if (a) there <br /> are no liens, mortgages, or encumbrances on the real property; (b) Planning Commission <br /> approval is obtained; and (c) there" is compliance w~;th 'terms of the lease. <br /> Mrs. Hubert Sears, 660 East 22nd Avenue, opposed the vacation on the grounds that the <br /> "Y" could not legally request vacation of land reverting to property not in its owner- <br /> ship. She said it was her understanding the School Board had rescinded its motion to <br /> allow construction of the apartment house and wondered, in that event, why the vacation <br /> was necessary. <br /> Manager said the "Y" intends to proceed with an apartment buildiI1g on this property and <br /> in order to develop the property as one pa~cel vacation of the alley is necessary. He <br /> said the City is concerned only with whether the vacation can be accomplished without <br /> cost to the City or disservice to the general public. If the alley is needed by the <br /> , / public, then it should not be vacated. The Planning, Commission has judged it is not <br /> needed and the application has not been withdrawn. The Council's responsibility, he <br /> said, is. not with any disagreement between the YMCA, and the School Board. In answer to <br /> I Councilman Hershner, Manager said the alley is not improved. <br /> In answer to Councilman Teague, Mr. Cross verified that the land proposed for development <br /> . is leased by the YMCA from School District 4J. Bill Thiess, manager of the YMCA, ans- <br /> weringfurther questions from Mr. Teague, said the "Y" has the option to buy the prop- <br /> erty in the 51st year of the lease, but negotiations are now in process in an attempt <br /> to change that provision, allwoing purchase of the property at this time. In answer <br /> to Mrs. Beal's statement that the vacated land would still revert to the School District, <br /> I he said the "Y" under terms of the lease contract in fact owns the land for the term of <br /> the lease, and that provision is beingtnegotiated with the School Board now to gain <br /> permanent ownership. <br /> Council discussion centered on need for vacation of the alley when there is no definite <br /> development plan, possibility of resubmitting the request when there are more definite <br /> development plans, whether the alley is of public benefit when property on both s ides is <br /> owned by the "Y" or the School District, previous rezoning of the' property to accommo-, <br /> date apartment development. It was pointed out that if the Council decides to vacate', <br /> final reading of the ordinance should: not be given until agreement on a fair value to be <br /> assessed against abutting property is reached. Mr. Thiess said that there is a plan <br /> for use of the property but financing is held up because of the current lease arrange- <br /> ments. He said the lease contract specifically stipulates the YMCA owns the property <br /> for the term of the lease. <br /> Hubert Sears, 660 East 22nd Avenue, wondered whe~her there would be need for a public <br /> . alley should a portion of the property be sold separately. Manager said the property <br /> could not be split without Planning Commission approval of a minor or major subdivision, <br /> at which time public access could be required. <br /> Councilman Hershner could see no reason for not vacating the alley since it ,is not im- <br /> proved and there appears to be no public need. Mayor Anderson viewed the vacation as <br /> another step in development of the YMCA property. <br /> 2 7 I 9/25/72 - 1 <br />