04/12/1971 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,..... -- S 15 e 4/12/71 Ii /1 I: t, The Planning Commission has never approved this street, but has recommended against its creation. B, Equitably, allowing duplexes would be a strict and literal interpretation which would be inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance C. Boih the legal and equitable basis can stand alone to support the action of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the neighborhood is seeking collectively relief from a harsh and inequitable result of a strict or literal interpretation of the building inspector - relief from allowing a situation which was never cont- emplated by the City Council, Planning Commisison, staff or the property owners of Monta Vista Park - a situation. which certainly would be incon'sistent with good' orderly pl,anning and inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, I Mr, Elfers said ~he Zoning Board of Appeals had primarily granted relief to the neighborhood on an equitable basis, that issuance of building permits would be contrary, to good planning and interpretation of the zoning ordinance. He felt that the conditions could stand inde- pendently on either basis and that the lots did not qualify as corner lots. He contended that the street had never existed, and said he had done considerable research into old laws in existence in 1911 and 1912. The procedure was not followed by Lane County to establish a road in that area. It was found the last half mile of old Hovey Road was too steep, and no further action was taken by the County Court to act upon a petition; therefore, no county road exiSTed there. e If it was assumed that there was a road in exi~tence, no street in this area has been surrendered by the County to the City and accepted by the City. Mr. Elfers pointed out the area on a vicinity map and explained vacation of streets on each side of 28th, He read a section of the zoning ordinance and stated that a corner lot had to be bounded entirely by streets which had been officially approved by the Planning Commission and accepted by the city of Eugene, which was not the case. Planning Commission has not approved this street, and to the contrary, has recommended its vacation, and against its creation in actuality. He felt that, even though the zoning ordinance', is new, i twould be retroactive in' a case of this nature. I Mr, Elfers s.aid if the Council upheld the zoning board of appeals, it would be following good planning, but if it oyerruled the Board, it would be supporting nothing more than a technical- ity and subterfuge for developing duplexes for commercial purposes. Mr. James Whitall, 2280 West 28th, pointed out another lot owned by Mr. Shields, and suggested that if they were successful in obtaining building permits for the two lots, they would also want to build a duplex on the third lot, which was adjacent to hills property, He read a portion of the restrictions on Monta Vista Park, and said those who platted it were being unfair to those who bought properties, by allowing duplexes to be built there. Mr. Ray Wiley, 2100 Shields, felt the fundamental thing involved'in the decision was whether City View was a ,lega,l' street or a pedestrian way. Heci ted a portion of the zoning ordinance which stated that the street had to be the principal means of egress to the abutting property, and that it was his contention that this public way did,not conform to this description. Ori~. several occasions the lianning Commission has recommended its vacation. Mr. Wiley reviewed the various actions which had taken place regarding this street or pedestrian way in the past, and maintained that, whether it was 10' wide or 30' wide, it was still a pedestrian way, and would not qualify as a street. Mr. Robert Miles, 2222 Shields, said he had appeared before the Council on a previous Vacation request for this street, and the discussion then centered around whether this was or was not a street, At that time Mr., Shields was requesting vacation of the street, and Mr. Roger Chrysler objected, saying his property would be landlocked. Mr. Miles did not want the street because it would increase traffic in the neighborhood, For the same reason, he objected to duplexes being built. He and his neighbors were trying to protect their property values, I In reply to.the Mayor's request for a show of hands, about 25 persons were present in support of the denial. Only two were in favor, e In answer to Mr. Mohr, Mr. Cooley said he had not seen the 1911 papers, but he was not sure they had a bearing, He felt the County and City could not have been wrong all that time that they had treated it as a street. In answer to Councilman McDonald, Mr. Elfers said they were relying on both the legal question and the equitable question. On other grounds it is a lite.ral interpretation which is unjlist and contrary to good planni~g, The City Attorney said the City took jurisdiction of City View because the County offered it, and as far ashe was concerned, this was a valid county road until a court said it was not, Therefore, it was considered a part of the City street system, and for that reason, the City granted a building permit. The Attorney replied to Mr. Hershner that the zoning board of appeals had acted with regard to the equities involved. I Mr. Mohr was concerned that the Council was in no position to make a decision, since it was unsure of the authority of the zoning board of appeals. Mrs. Beal did not agree, and felt there were two ways to look at the matter - the legal way and the common sense way. Mr. Hershner felt if the street had been. va.cated iri bits and pieces., he could not agree more with Mrs. Beal - he had seen the property and could not imagine a street in that gully, e 4/12/71 - 2 ....