Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"'II <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />~&I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Chamber <br />Eugene, Oregon <br />February 22, 1971 <br /> <br />Adjour~~~, meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by Hi~ Honor <br />Mayor Lester E. Anderson, at 7:30 p.m. on February 22,,1971, in the Council Chamber, with the <br />following Councilmen present: Messrs. Teague, Mohr and McDonald; Mrs. Beal; Messrs. Williams and <br />Hershner; Mrs. Campbell. <br /> <br />I. Items to be considered with Gne motion, after discussion of individual items, if requested. <br />These items were discussed at committee meetings of February 10 and February 17, 1971. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />*A. Request to Vacate City View from Shields to 28th Avenue - The Building Department has <br />2/10/71 been requested to issue building permits for construction of duplexes in this area. <br />Several years ago the Planning Commission recommended vacation of this street along <br />with similar segments of Cleveland and Arthur Streets. After lengthy public hearings, <br />the Council vacated Cleveland and Arthur, but declined the vacation of City view. <br />The discussion involved access to property to the south belonging to Mr. Roger Chrysler. <br />Since a previous vacation by the County was invalidated by a court decisi~ the present <br />status is somewhat obscure. There is a question whether the street was ever surrendered <br />to the City by the Cpunty, and whether the existence of the street permits construction of <br />duplexes on possible corner lots ~ The matter has now come back because people,=::in the area <br />have petitioned that the City request Lane County to surrender-City View to the City <br />so that it may be vacated and the problem eliminated. The Planning commission heard <br />the matter at its last meeting, and felt that its original recommendation for vacation <br />still stood. It is the staff recommendation the Council either refer the matter to <br />the Planning Commission for a final recommendation or proceed with a full public hearing <br />at the ,Council level. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Councilman Williams felt the Council shouJd request the Planning Commission to review <br />its decision, and that the legal question should be resolved before the Council <br />schedules a public hearing. ' <br /> <br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Gribskov to ask the Planning Commission to review <br />the legal status of th1s matter, and its prior recommendation, and make a new <br />recommendation. Motion carried. <br /> <br />Councilman McDonald was concerned with the,,':ninutes of this item, and felt the Council intent <br />had been to refer the matter to the Planning Commission and ~hat a public hearing would be set. <br /> <br />City Manager agreed that the recommendation had been to refer the matter to <br />Commission, and that is what the action will be, when the item is, approved. <br />will then be set. <br /> <br />the Planning <br />A public hearing <br />approve <br /> <br />B. Legislation <br />2/10/71 1. S.B;~ Recommending creation of a housing division at the state level. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Jordan explained that Mrs. Niven is now appearing before a legislative committee <br />in support of this ,bill, and has r~quested Council review. He outlined features of <br />the bill, and recommendations for change. <br /> <br />Mayor Anderson said this bill had been discussed before by the Council and at the <br />Joint Housing Committeee. He felt the Council should support the bill, since it fits <br />into its housing policy. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Gribskov moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to direct staff to prepare a resolution <br />directed to the Urban Affairs comrrutteesupporting the bill authorizing creatimof <br />a State Housing Division. <br /> <br />Councilman williams asked if the motion should not include support of proposed changes <br />suggested by Mrs. Niven. <br /> <br />Mr. Gribskov and Mrs. Beal agreed to this 'amendment. <br /> <br />Vote taken on amended motion. ,Motion c~rried. (For Resolution see Page ~) approve <br /> <br />2. H.B. 1112 - Deals with explosives and is basically in two parts, the first which <br />would require permits for sale and use of dynamite and explosives and the second which <br />relates to sale and use of bmack powder and smokeless powders. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Fire Marshal Wendell wick explained that the bill puts the burden of investigation on <br />the local Fire Department, and it is felt this, would more properly be the duty of the <br />Police Department. Funds received would be transferred to the State, rather than used <br />for reimbursement to the local jurisdiction. Mr. Jordan explained that the bill will provide <br />for licenses for those purchasing dynamite and all explosives. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />John Rutledge of the Police Department said it was hoped this bill would pass with <br />the inclusion of the black powder section, but it would be of some assistance even if <br />it did not, since there is now practically no control. <br /> <br />Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the Council request staff'to prepare <br />*LteID$. printed -in -italics are from co1T)17J:j.ttee meetings of Feb. 10 and 17, 1971' <br /> <br />2/22/71 - 1 <br /> <br />.... <br />