|
<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 School District has now withdrawn its approval of the project.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 She said it was her understanding the School Board had rescinded its motion to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 />
|