Laserfiche WebLink
<br />III - Consent Calendar <br />Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested. <br />Previously discussed in committee meetings on March 13 (Present: Mayor Anderson; <br />Councilmen Williams, Hershner, Beal, Campbell, Keller, Murray, and Wood) and March 20 <br />(Present: Mayor Anderson; Councilmen Hershner, McDonald, Beal, Campbell, Murray, and <br />Wood). Minutes of those meetings appear below printed in italics. <br /> <br />02~. <br /> <br />---- - --'-'-~.-..__.--_..-- ,-. ~ .-..\~ "I' ,... . . ,',- <br />A.Request for vacation of alley between Monroe and Madison, 25th to 26th (Blackstone - <br />AV 73-3) - Planning Commission on February 11, 1974 recommended denial of the vaca- <br />tion. The Commission further recommended that the applicant be referred to the <br />Zoning Board of Appeals for assistance. The recommendation resulted because of <br />,objections from neighbors using the, alley for access. Some Council members viewed <br />the site on tour. Manager explained that an addition to Mr. Blackstone's house <br />'at the corner of the alley and 25th resulted in encroachment upon the setback area. <br />When building permit for the addition was issued it was not discovered that the <br />falleywas a ded.:J.c:ated right-of-way.. Mapac;er.:, said tJ:a t the zoning Board had the <br />authority to waive the five-foot setback requirement. If' any portion of the hous~ <br />actually encroached upon the right-of-way and did not hinder any public uS,e, a <br />revocable permit could be granted. <br /> <br />Stanley Blackstone, 4125 Jessen Drive, explained that a survey received since con- <br />struction of the addition showed the original structure about six inches from the <br />'property line. After construction of the addition, the violation of the sethack <br />area was discovered. Mr. Blackstone said he would accept either vacation of the <br />alley or an irrevocable permit. He noted that the original structure had been in <br />existence for 25 years without objection to its proximity to the property line, <br />and that a permanent easement would still provide access for other properties <br />abutting the alley. <br /> <br />--"'" " <br />-, <br />.' <br /> <br />Councilman Williams fe1 tit would not be proper to vacate the alley in view of <br />opposition in the neighborhood. And he was 'hesitant about granting an irrevocable <br />permit which he felt would be setting precedent, placing the City in the position <br />of granting permission for building in public rights-of-way, either by accident or <br />design, after the fact. However, he could see no reason why the building should be <br />removed and suggested a revocable permit might be appropriate. <br /> <br />Manager said staff recommendation would be to refer to the zoning Board of Appeals <br />, for consideration of setback variance and for overhang over the alley right-of- <br />way, granting a revocable permit. In answer to Mr. Blackstone, Manager said that <br />such a permit would appear on the title but similar situations have presented no <br />problems. Business buildings in the downtown area have this type arrangement, he Comm <br />-.--' said, where eaves have been permitted to overhang the public right-of-way. 3/13/74 <br />Approve <br />.Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mr. Williams to refer the vacation request to the zoning <br />j Boardof..lj.ppea1s. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />B.cIEOG ph;posed poncy re: Construction and extension of water and sew~i systems In---- 'I <br />iL~pe County - Copies of anLCOG resolution setting out proposed policy "on construction <br />;and ?~tension of water and sewer systems in Lane County were previousJy distributed <br />(to Council members for comment back to LCOG before formal consider~.tiQn and q,doption. <br />iIf LCOG adopted the policy it would then be referred back to member'agen9ies for <br />\adoption of a similar or identical policy before becoming effective.' M~~ger ex- <br />Iplained that an administrative process had been followed for some ti~e ~hereby any <br />irequest for water main extension, either within the city or outside: areas not being <br />served, was referred to the Eugene Water & Electric Board, Lane County, and LCOG for <br />[feedback before EWEB decided whether to extend the main. That proc~ss~ he said, was <br />[similar to the policy proposed by LCOG. Staff had no recommendatio~s with regard to <br />'wordin~ changes. Manager noted that the 1973 Legislature gave to the Boundary Com- <br />Imission review authority for extension of water and sewer lines o~tside .city or <br />special district boundaries, so the Commission had need for a policy statement for <br />guidance also. <br /> <br />.... <br /> <br />Gary Chenkin, planning department, represented the city on a committee of LCOG <br />agency members which prepared the proposed policy. He said the present..process for <br />extending service within the urban service boundary but outside city'or special dis- <br />'trict limits probably would not be affected by the policy. It was aimed basically <br />:at extension of service beyond the urbans~rvice boundary entirely. <br /> <br />,_.-~,. <br />-, <br /> <br />" - <br /> <br />'Councilman Williams asked whether adoption of this policy would preclude service to <br />the River Road area bya metropolitan area sewer service distric:t wjthout requiring <br />:annexation "to the City. Manager answered that there was no cqnfl,ic;t.; 'it would be a <br />!question of city policy on annexation. Councilwoman Cq,mpbell favpred the policy <br />'and said she would endorse it. ' , <br /> <br />&3 <br /> <br />3/25/74 - 2 <br />