10/28/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'.~ 'j' Findings The criteria for evaluating requests for vacation of easements and public e rights of way are contained in Eugene Code Section 7.610(3)(a). The findings and conclusions are based on material contained in the Applicant's Statement, information received from various referral agencies, and viewing of the subject area and vicinity by staff. Section 7.6l0(3)(a)(1): The subject area is not presently nor in the future needed for public service facilities or utilities. The following comments or concerns were presented as a result of notification and are incorporated as follows: 1. The Engineering Division of the Public Works Department indicates sanitary or storm sewers including catch basins for curb drainage do not exist in the subject area. Private surface drainage facilities from the Williams Bakery facility and adjacent paved parking areas are also not located in the requested area. 2. The Fire Department has set forth the following two conditions if the vacation is approved. They are as follows: a. Provide an additional fire hydrant at the entrance of the propo~ed cul-de-sac terminating Moss Street at the southerly boundary of the proposed .vacation (see attached proposed . . , deve 1 opment map ).. b. Provide an emergency fire lane at the turnaround/cul-de-sac bulb e with a barricade having design approval by the Fire Marshal's Office. 3. EWEB indicates that water and electrical facilities are located in the subject area. They have submitted various options allowing the developer to relocate with an existing easement within the subject area or supporting a redesign of the water system not incorporating a facility in or adjacent to the vacation. The cost of redesign or relocation of existing EWEB facilities including water and electricity will be at the expense of the applicant. 4. Northwest Natural Gas facilities in Moss Street can be relocated and again will be at the expense of the applicant. 5. Pacific Northwest Bell and Group W Cable do not have facilities in the subject area. 6. The Fairmount Neighbors responded with a letter dated September 19, 1985 (see attached). Three concerns were noted and are as follow: a. liThe first is the issue of compensation to the City, since the streets are pai d for by assessment. II , , - STAFF NOTES--Planning eommission/City Council October 28, 1985 Page 2