Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Q. Consideration of New Developments Using Undeveloped Streets - Manager_9dvised <br /> .that Council has toured a problem area in the South Hills as referred to by Mrs. <br /> Shirey, though she was not able to be present for the tour. Ideas are being <br /> discussed with her, and at this time only a status report can be given on <br /> e various possible approaches being considered. <br /> Mrs. Shirey noted it is a difficult problem and one that is inherent in the <br /> hills around Eugene. <br /> Manager referred to one type of situation where lots now being developed simply <br /> have a driveway access to a road other than the one on which they front. <br /> Possibly in those instances, on an undeveloped street, some way could be <br /> determined to provide that those property owners pay for a share of any street <br /> beyond the frontage of the driveway opening. Mrs. Shirey felt, though, that <br /> the problem arises before that point, or when the land is subdivided. Some <br /> of the streets the lots touch will never be developed and when subdivided in that <br /> manner some sort of travel use should be guaranteed. If the street is non-existent, <br /> there should be some provision for use by possibly running a driveway through. <br /> Mrs. Beal clarified that the desire was to avoid undeveloped streets <br /> remaining while building permits are being issued for land which should <br /> be using those streets. She suggested the possibility of withholding <br /> building permit issuance until the street touching the lo~ for which the permit <br /> is issued has an all wet weather surface. Another alternative might be to <br /> spread the cost of developing a street, even at a later date, among all lots <br /> affected. Mrs. Shirey explained that would work in some cases but some <br /> streets will never be developed. Subdivision can occur one year, lands can <br /> be sold, and a new owner, in good faith, applies for a building permit. <br /> - It was understood a status report would be brought back on the Corom <br /> matter by staff. 11-19-75 <br /> file <br /> Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to approve, affirm and file as noted Items <br /> A through Q. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> III - Ordinances <br /> Council Bill No. 685 - Vacating alleys and easements in block between 6th and <br /> 7th, Oak and Pearl, and easements in block between 7th <br /> and 8th, Oak and Pearl (Lane County) was read the first time by council bill <br /> number and title only, there being no council members present requesting that it <br /> be read in full. <br /> Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be read the second time by <br /> council bill number only, with unanlmous consent of the Council, and that enactment <br /> be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the <br /> second time by council bill number only. <br /> Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final <br /> passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was <br /> declared passed and numbered 17476. <br /> Council Bill No. 960 - Amending City Code re: Deletion of Civil Defense Board was <br /> - read the first time by council bill number and title only, <br /> there being no council members present requesting that it be read in full. <br /> Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be read the second time by <br /> council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment <br /> ~Zl? 11/24/75 - 15 <br />