Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />A complete copy of the application along with other documents and information related to the vacation <br />request including a written statement, consent forms and written testimony are contained in a binder that <br />has been placed in the Council Office for reference. <br /> <br />Public Hearing Notice <br />Notice of public hearing for the requested alley vacation has been provided in the following manner: On <br />March 29, 2012, notice was mailed to property owners, interested parties, the officially recognized <br />neighborhood group, the Downtown Neighborhood Association, as well as the adjacent neighborhood <br />groups, the Jefferson Westside Neighbors and the West University Neighbors; on April 9, 2012, the <br />property was posted in the immediate vicinity of the requested alley vacation; and on April 9, 2012, and <br />April 16, 2012, legal notice was published in The Register-Guard newspaper. <br /> <br />Public comments received in response to the public notice are included in the council binder, which at <br />this time consists of the following: an email dated April 14, 2012, from Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki; a <br />letter dated April 15, 2012, from Hugh Prichard; and five emails dated April 16, 2012, from Paul Conte <br />with attachments that include his testimony and copies of the applicant’s application materials for the <br />subject vacation, Traffic Impact Analysis and MUPTE applications, copies of documents from LUBA <br />No. 2011-112, the Metro Plan, and the Downtown Plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Zdzienicki’s testimony requests that the new alley be 24 feet in width to provide wheelchair, <br />pedestrian, and bicycle facilities with landscaping on both sides. The City Engineer has evaluated the <br />proposed bicycle/pedestrian connection through the site and recommends specific improvements to <br />enhance safety, but otherwise finds the proposed 20-foot width to be sufficient; the staff <br />recommendation is provided in Exhibit C (findings) to the draft Ordinance, included as Attachment D. <br /> <br />Mr. Prichard’s testimony is in support of Capstone’s application. Mr. Prichard is a 35-year property <br />owner in the “affected area,” and is the former Executive Director of the Eugene Clinic which was <br />located on the subject site. Mr. Prichard’s testimony notes that, as a regular user of the subject right-of- <br />th <br />way, he has witnessed many near misses due to the misalignment of West 12 Avenue. Staff agrees that <br />the proposed realignment of the east-west bicycle/pedestrian connection will be a significant <br />improvement, as further discussed in the findings provided in Exhibit C to the draft ordinance, included <br />as Attachment D. <br /> <br />Mr. Conte’s testimony identifies several issues including an allegation that the public notice should have <br />explained that participants may request that the City continue the hearing or keep the record open. In <br />response to this allegation, the City Attorney’s office has explained that any potential procedural error in <br />the City’s notice is remedied by the facts that Mr. Conte has made such a request in his testimony and <br />that the record will therefore be held open for a minimum of seven days following close of the public <br />hearing. Mr. Conte also alleges deficiencies with respect to the required payment of a deposit for the <br />assessment of special benefit and the consent from surrounding property owners. As the record <br />demonstrates, the various application requirements noted in Mr. Conte’s testimony have been addressed. <br />The required consent from surrounding property owners, and the applicant’s payment of an assessment <br />for the vacated area, are further addressed below. It is also noted that the initial filing fees are waived <br />for all land use applications in the downtown area, as set by the City’s adopted fee schedule, although <br />the applicant has been charged for publication of the vacation notice. The approval criterion for the <br />vacation is also further addressed below, and in the findings attached to the draft ordinance. That sole <br />approval criterion requires that the council find that approval will be in the public interest, which allows <br /> S:\CMO\2012 Council Agendas\M120423\S1204233.doc <br /> <br />