05/12/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Mr. Staples in order to be clear on the action stated then that the group did not have a charter. Assistant Manager said that since the Southeast Firs organization did constitute a fairly large group of people, it perhaps could develop boundaries contiguous to the Oak Hills group and then come back to the Council for considera- tion. There were no objections from the Council. C. Appeal from Planning Commission denial of rezoning property at north end of Grand Street (on west side) (Blinkhorn)(Z 75-1) Denied by Planning Commission on April 1, 1975. Appellant requested continuance of the hearing to the May 27, 1975 Council meeting because of inadequate time of notice of public hearing and not having sufficient time to prepare testimony. Staff had no objections. Council had no objections and it was understood the public hearing on this appeal would be carried over to the May 27, 1975 Council meeting. (I-A-S) D. Request for Tax Exemption - Edgewood Homes Association Council members viewed the area under consideration for tax exemption status on tour. Staff advised that the property did not fall within the language of the statute covering tax exemption status. Public hearing was opened. e George Alberti, 430 East 46th Avenue, member of Edgewood Homes Association Board of Directors, stated bases on which the tax exemption was requested: (1) The area regardless of private ownership was open to the public, and operated much the same as the Elks Club property; (2) parking available was similar to that at Amazon Pool, any overflow from the parking lot could be handled in adjacent on- street parking space; members using the property have indicated no increased traffic because of the pool use; (3) safety features were met through licensing by health department and periodically certified by Lane County, street lights were provided, lawn areas trimmed, lifeguard requirements satisfied; (4) Mr. Breeden has indicated he will relinquish reversion rights (to private ownership); and (5) the people accommodated would relieve some of the pressure on Amazon Pool. He said that although property tax was now being paid it was not producing income. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Jim Saul, planner, explained city staff position: (1) The area under discussion was owned by a private organization not comparable to the Elks Club tax exemption because that exemption was by reason of its being a fraternal organization; (2)the pool could not be accepted by the city because of its inadequacy for public use; (3) there was no intent on staff's part to infer the pool was unsafe, it does qualify for the type usage it now has; staff position was that if this pool would qualify for tax exemption, pools of any other association would also qualify; (4) if the city should through reversion rights acquire ownership, the pool could not be put to public use, rather it would have to be sold to abutting properties. Mr. Saul said that if tax exemption was approved, findings would have to be made with regard to conservation of natrual or scenic resources, protection of air and water supplies, enhandement of neighboring open space and/or recreational oppor- tunities, preservation of historic sites, etc. He said that probablay the most relevant of those would be the enhancement of recreational opportunities. e Assistant Manager said that staff was most concerned about reversion of the prop- erty to the public, that if that did occur the city would have the clear right to dispose of it in any proper way. 5/12/75 - 3 ~e.