Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> , <br /> M I NUT E S <br /> . EUGENE CITY COUNCIL <br /> December 12, 1977 <br /> Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called <br /> to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 7:30 p.m. on December 12,1977, in the <br /> Council Chamber with the following Councilors present: Eric Haws, D. W. Hamel, <br /> Tom Williams, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, and Betty Smith. Council ors Ray <br /> Bradley and Brian Obie were absent. <br /> 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS <br /> A. Appeal of Minor Partition, located west of Shasta Loop on west side <br /> of Barber Drive (Clark) (M 77-117) <br /> Denied by Planning Commission October 10,1977, with 3:1 vote. <br /> Manager said the item had been appealed twice, once in regard to <br /> staff action and once before the Planning Commission. In both <br /> instances, the Planning Commission upheld the staff and the appeal <br /> now was to City Council for consideration. Jim Saul, Planner, <br /> reviewed the location of the minor partition, which involves the <br /> creation of three lots from an original parcel containing approxi- <br /> mately one and one-third acres. Parcel 1 will be a corner lot and <br /> e contain approximately 12,800 square feet; Parcel 2 will contain <br /> approximately 10,500 square feet; and Parcel 3 will contain appro- <br /> ximately 37,250 square feet. He noted Parcel 3 would be suitable <br /> for further division into three lots, thus the total number of lots <br /> which could be created from the original 60,500 square feet could <br /> be five. All property is presently vacant. The minor partition <br /> was submitted to the Planning Commission in July and approved in <br /> August of 1977. Action of the staff was appealed to the Planning <br /> Commission for consideration September 26 and October 10,1977, <br /> at which time the Planning Commission upheld staff position and <br /> denied the appeal. <br /> Several issues had been raised in the appeal. Mr. Saul identified <br /> two critical issues raised by the appellants: 1) Deed restrictions <br /> limiting a lot to one single-family residence. He said the City has <br /> a policy of not enforcing private deed restrictions of this nature, <br /> noting it could be contrary to adopted City policies, and could <br /> involve some legal complications. 2) The appellants contend the <br /> property should have been divided through a major, as opposed to <br /> a minor partition. <br /> Mr. Saul continued with other salient points. There is no <br /> difference in notification procedures between a major and minor <br /> partition. There is no difference in opportunity for appeal of a <br /> major or minor partition with the single exception of 30 days ap- <br /> peal for a major partition and ten days appeal for a minor. The <br /> -- <br /> 12/12/77 - 1 <br /> qao <br />