Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />"-- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />'-... <br /> <br />MINUTES <br />EUGENE CITY COUNCIL <br />Feburary 28, 1977 <br /> <br />Adjourned meeting from February 14, 1977 of the Common Council of the City <br />of Eugene, Ore<Jon was called to order by His Honor, Mayor Gus Keller at <br />7:30 p.m. on February 28, 1977 in the Council Chamber with the following <br />Council members present: Eric Haws, D. W. Hamel, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley, <br />Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian <l>ie, and Betty Smith. <br /> <br />I. Public HearinQs <br /> <br />I-A-l A. Blain Alley Vacation (AV 76-6), located west of High Street, north <br />of East 2nd Avenue; retaining public utility and pedestrian easements <br />Recol11lTlended by Planning Commission December 13,1976. <br />Manager indicated this alley vacation had been r~quested by the <br />adjacent property owner. Both Tax Lots 200 and 1000 are owned by <br />the applicant. Petitioner: Frank Blain <br /> <br />Mr. Saul, Pl anni n9 Department revi ewed background for the Council. <br />He said review of this proposed vacation indicated the following <br />considerations are pertinent to the request: <br />1. The alley is presently unimproved. <br />2. There is a substantial grade change between High Street <br />(the east end of the alley) and the intersecting north- <br />south alley (the west end of the alley). In order to <br />establish a uniform grade for improvement of the alley, <br />it would be necessary to import fill. This would result <br />in the creation of a grade difference between the alley <br />and the adjacent property which would reach a maximum of <br />about 10 feet at the west end of the proposed vacation. <br />3. Because of the steepness of the slope, it is highly un- <br />likely that the remainder of the alley to the west would <br />be improved. <br />4. The alley is not needed for access to adjacent properties. <br />5. Review by the Public Works Department and other agencies <br />indicate that there is no need to retain this alley. <br />However, both the Public Works Department and EWEB have <br />indicated that public utility easement should be retained <br />to accommodate existing utilities. In view of the physical <br />difficulties associated with the improvement of this alley <br />as well as the effect such improvement would have on the <br />adjacent property and the effect that retention of the <br />alley is not necessary to serve the public, the Staff <br />recommended at its December 13, 1976 meeting that the <br />proposed alley vacation be approved. The recommendation <br />is subject to retention of public utility easement. <br /> <br />Public Hearin<J was opened. <br /> <br />Otto Poticha, 1820 Kona Street, spoke in favor of the alley <br />vacation. He cited the same concerns of improvement of the alley <br /> <br />2/28/77 --1 <br /> <br />131 <br />