|
<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 />
|