Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"'---- <br /> <br />as had been stated by the Planning Commission. He represented <br />the owner of the site who would like to be able to develop <br />both halves of the property as one parcel. He said an addi- <br />tional concern was for the area growing denser over a period of <br />time and the alley would provide for some open space. He said <br />the request was for an easement and therefore it would not be <br />possible to build on the easement. He indicated the alley could <br />be used as a parking area and would connect with the upper alley; <br />also, he saw no value in having the alley as it presently stands <br />and would like to see the city vacate it. <br /> <br />Brian Simonitch, 208 East 2nd Avenue, spoke as the representative <br />of the East Skinners Butte Friends and Neighbors, against the <br />alley vacation. He was also representing the following people: <br />Leif L. Selkregg, 205 East 2nd; James O'Malley, 224 East 2nd; <br />Martha Filer, 235 East 3rd; and Sheila O'Malley, 224 East 2nd. <br />Mr. Simonitch distributed to Council a memorandum regarding <br />vacation of alleyways. He asked the Council to view the docu- <br />ment very carefully, as it constitutes a legal argument which <br />will be litigated in regard to the alley vacation. He cited <br />the City Council does not have the authority to grant the vacation <br />at thi s time under these procedures as there was not adequate <br />advertising done, and no adequate criteria used in preparing the <br />report for the alley vacation. He said the City Code says the <br />Common Council shall have the power and authority within the <br />limits of the City of Eugene to provide for the vacation of any <br />street or alley on the petition or with the consent of not less <br />than three-quarters of the owners of the property adjoining or <br />abutting upon such street or part thereof to be so vacated. He <br />also said the Council must determine whether or not the vacation <br />would be in the public interest. He indicated there was a con- <br />flict between whether the City Code and the State Statutes, which <br />one should have authority in an alley vacation. He felt, as did <br />the people he was representing, that the city was in violation <br />of the state law and would be liable for an injunction to keep <br />the City Council from proceeding any further. He again said <br />that the application was defective, citing that no proper notice <br />had been sent out, no notarization had been granted, and consent <br />of the property owners had not been part of the application. He <br />also cited the balancing test under state statutes which would <br />have to indicate who has precedents and interests, saying that <br />none were adopted. He said that there were inadequate procedures <br />used in determining to proceed with the alley vacation and that <br />the city would have to consider willfully disregarding the state <br />statutes. He asked the Council to suspend any action and to give <br />more consideration than had been given prior to the meeting. <br /> <br />Public hearing was closed with no further testimony being <br />presented. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />\ -- <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Ms. Smith asked for a response from the City Attorney. Mr. <br />Long replied t~at the City has taken a position of vacating <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />'- <br /> <br />2/28/77--2 <br /> <br />138 <br />