My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/28/1981 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1981
>
01/28/1981 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2007 5:32:23 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 5:44:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/28/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />David Williams, 975 Oak, #600, representing Riverside Realty, said Mr. Gleason <br />had indlcated their concerns about price. Their preference was to work at staff <br />level on the price. Their basic concern, backed up by the 1979 Attorney General's <br />opinion, was that the assessed value of the lot is not an appropriate measure on <br />a street vacation. If the City decided that it was in the public interest to <br />grant a street vacation, then the administrative costs are an appropriate <br />measure. Since the decision has been made, the land reverts to the abutting <br />property owners. They would like to resolve this issue at staff level. <br /> <br />Jeff Seigal pointed out that the City has, in essence, vacated most of the north <br />end of Van Buren Street. Observation would show that Mr. Safley, in the course <br />of development of Riverls Edge Apartments, had occupied, developed, landscaped, <br />and put in driveways and roads, as well as fences, on what constitutes north Van <br />Buren Street. He questioned if there was an agreement between the City and <br />Riverside Realty that would allow development of north Van Buren Street which is <br />occupied by the Riverls Edge Apartments. <br /> <br />Public hearing was closed. <br /> <br />Ms. Schue asked what the present zoning of the River's Edge Apartments is and <br />whether expansion can take place without going back through the Planning Commis- <br />sion. Mr. Porter replied that the present zoning is R-2, 13A. If the vacated <br />property was not part of the PUD, it would have to go through the application <br />and public hearing processes for a PUD. Mr. Porter said that on June 15, 1980, <br />the City sent notices to th~ neighborhood group; on October 3, 1980, they sent <br />a revision to that notice. Mr. Seigal did notify them on August 7, 1980, that <br />he objected to the vacation. The City had not had a formal, written response <br />from the neighborhood group. There was no adverse testimony at the Planning <br />Commission meeting by Mr. Seigal or by people in the area. <br /> <br />Ms. Schue wished to have some forum for the Whiteaker neighborhood concerns. <br /> <br />Mr. Obie asked if a 50' x 70' lot was legal lot size for a single-family resi- <br />dence. Mr. Porter replied the PUD is not based on lot size per se; it is based <br />on square footage. A normal residential lot has to have 60 feet of frontage. <br />This lot is not large enough to be developed by itself. It has to be part of <br />the other property to be usable. Mr. Obie ascertained that Riverside Realty <br />owned the surrounding property. Mr. Porter indicated the vacated property would <br />go to the abutting property and RA zoning would be automatically applied to the <br />vacated street. <br /> <br />Mr. Gleason said the law requires that they assess benefits. What the City is <br />selling is the value of the benefit of the public easement; strict appraisal <br />values do not always rule. It is not necessary that the City ignore the appraised <br />value. Comparing the easement with the surrounding appraisal is not always <br />legitimate appraisal procedure. <br /> <br />Ms. Miller asked what additional density would be allowed for the PUD on the <br />additional 3,500 square feet. Mr. Porter said that he would get that informa- <br />tion. ,She asked if Mr. Long had any opinion as to the sale of the easement or <br />the right-of-way across the piece of property, and whether it would be affected <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />January 28, 1981 <br /> <br />Page 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.