Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

guidelines rather than a proscriptive code approach. He hoped the City Council and Planning Commission would consider that work in their discussions of the alternative path. Councilor Kelly interpreted the council’s motion of October 12 as precluding action prior to its considera- tion of a Ballot Measure 37 compensation fund, scheduled for January 25. Councilor Kelly expressed interest in revising the recommendations to provide for a minimum density in the area to be zoned for 15 units per acre. He also wanted to see language for an amendment that respected the height limitation and design standards while allowing for condominiums and row houses. 6. PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Ordinance Vacating a Portion of the Alley th Right-of-Way Located Between 10 Avenue and Broadway, Parallel to Olive and Charnelton Streets, Providing for an Effective Date; and Providing for a Sunset Date Mayor Piercy called for ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. There were none declared. She determined that no councilor had made site visits, although Councilor Papé noted he had visited the site several times. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that a casual drive-by did not constitute a site visit. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Bettman determined from Alissa Hansen of the Planning Division that as a result of the vacation, one-quarter of the alley would go to Diamond Parking. Councilor Bettman asked what compensation the City would receive in return. Ms. Hansen clarified that the code allowed for the City Manager to make a determination of the special assessment, which would be approved by the council. The manager was not recommending an assessment in this case because the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency was initiating the vacation. That was consistent with past City actions. Councilor Bettman asserted that if the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) project did not come to fruition, the portion of the alley going to the Urban Renewal Agency would then benefit another private party. However, she supported donating that portion of right-of-way to ORI because she believed there was a large public benefit involved. Councilor Bettman asked how the manager determined there was a public benefit to “giving away” City assets to Diamond Parking. Ms. Hansen clarified that Diamond Parking had not requested the right-of-way in question. Councilor Bettman requested an amendment that tied what she termed the alley vacation “giveaway” to the ORI development and an amendment that required remuneration to the City from Diamond Parking for the vacated right-of-way. Councilor Papé asked why the issue was coming to the council at this time. City Manager Taylor said that the meeting was the first time the council’s calendar could accommodate the item. It was also consistent with the time line in the City’s agreement with ORI. Mayor Piercy suggested that action be scheduled for a future meeting. City Manager Taylor concurred. Councilor Solomon asked what happened if Diamond Parking did not want part of the alley in question, and why the entire alley was not dedicated to the Urban Renewal Agency. Mr. Klein clarified that under State law, when the City Council vacated a right-of-way, the property in question went back to the adjacent underlying owners. The council did not have the authority to deed the property to the Urban Renewal MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 8 Regular Meeting