05/23/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e yes. He said it was a difficult process for the government to use correctly, with each case judged by the courts on its own merit. Mr. Delay then questioned in the use of a moratorium, if it would be best to be used for a specific purpose and for a specific time limit. Mr. Long replied generally the courts have upheld a moratorium when there was a purpose for developing a plan, but that a moratorium for the sake of delay itselfwas a questionable practice. Mr. Haws then asked staff to advise Council on the best way to proceed in terms of not having the development on the two lots in question. Manager replied that for an indefinite period of time, it would be best for the City to acquire the land. Mr. Bradley questioned whether there were any funds for the acquisition of the property by the City. Manager replied the property was not included in the development of the serial levy, so levy funds could not be used for that purpose. He said another possible source might be the contingency fund, in which there were sufficient.funds to purchase one lot. He said the two lots had been estimated at a total value of $250,000, but the fund did not have that amount. However, the lots could be acquired over a period of time. Mr. Bradley then questioned if Council were to proceed with the acquisi- tion of the property, what the first step would be--condemnation of the property or negotiating with property owners who want to sell. Mayor Keller replied the first step would be to withdraw the Council's position it had already adopted of allowing the development to proceed. However, Council would have to have reasons for stopping the development and instruct staff to so proceed. He felt if the idea were just to hold up the development, it would be an inappropriate action by Council. . Mr. Bradley stated two reasons he felt the development should be held up: 1) if Council wanted to acquire the property, or 2) if Council would want to develop a comprehensive land-use plan for the Skinner Butte area. , Ms. Smith asked for clarification as to which two lots were being discussed, the lot of the development and the neighboring lot, or two additional lots. Jim Saul, Planning Department, replied the two lots in question included the one which is the subject of the apartment development, Tax Lot 200; the other lot immediately to the west of the apartment site, which is presently zoned M-2. Mr. Delay said he had toured the Butte area and taken another look at the lots in question. He shared the concern about preserving the his- torical and view aspects of the Skinner Butte area between the railroad and the Shelton-McMurphy House. There were not many such spaces left in Eugene and he was interested in pursuing the purchase of that lot to prevent any development on it. Mr. Lieuallen wondered how Council could justify spending $250,000 on the purchase of these two lots when the City owns an adequate portion of the Skinner Butte area already. He did not feel the pro- posed development was going to have that severe an impact on the Butte. - 5/23/77-- 7 402