01/28/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e - David Williams, 975 Oak, #600, representing Riverside Realty, said Mr. Gleason had indlcated their concerns about price. Their preference was to work at staff level on the price. Their basic concern, backed up by the 1979 Attorney General's opinion, was that the assessed value of the lot is not an appropriate measure on a street vacation. If the City decided that it was in the public interest to grant a street vacation, then the administrative costs are an appropriate measure. Since the decision has been made, the land reverts to the abutting property owners. They would like to resolve this issue at staff level. Jeff Seigal pointed out that the City has, in essence, vacated most of the north end of Van Buren Street. Observation would show that Mr. Safley, in the course of development of Riverls Edge Apartments, had occupied, developed, landscaped, and put in driveways and roads, as well as fences, on what constitutes north Van Buren Street. He questioned if there was an agreement between the City and Riverside Realty that would allow development of north Van Buren Street which is occupied by the Riverls Edge Apartments. Public hearing was closed. Ms. Schue asked what the present zoning of the River's Edge Apartments is and whether expansion can take place without going back through the Planning Commis- sion. Mr. Porter replied that the present zoning is R-2, 13A. If the vacated property was not part of the PUD, it would have to go through the application and public hearing processes for a PUD. Mr. Porter said that on June 15, 1980, the City sent notices to th~ neighborhood group; on October 3, 1980, they sent a revision to that notice. Mr. Seigal did notify them on August 7, 1980, that he objected to the vacation. The City had not had a formal, written response from the neighborhood group. There was no adverse testimony at the Planning Commission meeting by Mr. Seigal or by people in the area. Ms. Schue wished to have some forum for the Whiteaker neighborhood concerns. Mr. Obie asked if a 50' x 70' lot was legal lot size for a single-family resi- dence. Mr. Porter replied the PUD is not based on lot size per se; it is based on square footage. A normal residential lot has to have 60 feet of frontage. This lot is not large enough to be developed by itself. It has to be part of the other property to be usable. Mr. Obie ascertained that Riverside Realty owned the surrounding property. Mr. Porter indicated the vacated property would go to the abutting property and RA zoning would be automatically applied to the vacated street. Mr. Gleason said the law requires that they assess benefits. What the City is selling is the value of the benefit of the public easement; strict appraisal values do not always rule. It is not necessary that the City ignore the appraised value. Comparing the easement with the surrounding appraisal is not always legitimate appraisal procedure. Ms. Miller asked what additional density would be allowed for the PUD on the additional 3,500 square feet. Mr. Porter said that he would get that informa- tion. ,She asked if Mr. Long had any opinion as to the sale of the easement or the right-of-way across the piece of property, and whether it would be affected MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 28, 1981 Page 6