Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,...- <br />~~ e <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />I' <br />II <br />:1 I <br />II <br />Council Chamber :: <br />Eugene, Oregon " <br />August 23, 19711 <br />" <br /> <br /> <br />i: Adj ourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His <br />i: Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30p.m. on August 23, 1971 in the Council Chamber, with the <br />\1 following councilmen present: <br /> <br />" <br />i: <br />il Teague Gribskov <br />ii Mohr Williams , <br />" ' <br />,: McDonald Campbell Ii <br />Ii Beal Hershner ',' <br />I; 'i <br />ii 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS :: <br />I: A. Action on the hearing of Boise Cascade, tabled August 9, 1971 <br />,I <br />II <br />(i A public hearing was held on this request August 9, 1971. Council decided to table the e <br />i! matter to give an opportunity to study information received at that meeting. <br />, <br />" <br /> <br />Ii In answer to Councilman Williams, Planning Director outlined reasons for staff position, <br />and how further information had altered that position. They now agree with the Planning <br />;: Commission that schools would be adeq.uate, and since learning of FHA requirements, no longer I <br />!1 recommend one-bedroom units in place of the three-bedroom units. I <br /> <br />:, Mrs. Niven explained the Planning .commission recommendation, and the need for more housing <br />!: for moderate income families. The city has provided housing for low income elderly, but <br />I <br />I: has neglected the moderate income families, which is contrary, to FHA policy and requirements. <br />I: <br />Ii In answer to Mr. Hershner's concerns, Manager explained that one of the conditions of <br />:' Planning Commission approval was that Brewer Avenue be properly developed. <br />II <br />Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the decision of the Planning Commission <br />be upheld. Motion carried. Mr. Teague and Mr. McDonald v.oted no. <br /> <br />i: B. Appeal, Zoning Boar.d of Appeals Decision, Dean C. Ing <br /> <br />A public hearing had been scheduled on this matter for this date, but unfortunately, ~i <br />the City Council has not had an opportunity to view the property. If the Council feels, <br />after hearing the testimony, that they still wish to view the property, the decision : <br />may be delayed. <br /> <br />City Manager read the minutes of the Board of Appeals meeting. He commented that a <br />letter had been received this day from Mr. Battaile wherein he stated that he appreciated <br />the need for a fence along the east property line, but he suggested it be limited in <br />length and location. Mr. lng's letter of appeal was previously distributed to Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Dean lng, 15 West 35th Place, said he had not intended to fence the entire property, <br />and that the 80' length suggested by Mr. Battaile was satisfactory. He explained the I <br />location of the properties in the neighborhood and how such a fence would provide . <br />pri vacy. He showed line of sight drawings to the Council to demonstrate his point. :: <br /> <br />There was no one to speak in opposition to this request. <br /> <br />Councilman McDonald said he would prefer to have an opportunity to view this property <br />before making a decision. 'I <br />" <br /> <br />In answer to Mr. Williams, Building Superintendent explained that it was the feeling , - <br />of the Board of Appeals that landscaping would be superior to fencing to 'QDtairi~the <br />desired privacy. -- -." ': - ~ <br /> <br />Mr. Ing ~xplained the expense of purchasing plantings of sufficient height, or planting <br />smaller shrubs and waiting for them to grow. He did not feel he had sufficient time <br />to wait. <br /> <br />Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the Council hold this item until the property <br />had been viewed. Motion carried. <br /> <br />C. Firefighters Request for Reimb~rsement, for Attorney Fees, Collective Bargaining Liti- <br />gation. (Minutes of Committee meeting below for Council information) <br /> <br />8/11/71 Local 851 Eugene Firefighters and Local l724A AFSCME have each demanded payment by 1- <br />the City of $1,317.37 for costs of litigation. Copies of their correspondence and i: <br />opinions of both the former and present City Attorney were circulated previously <br />to Counci lmen. " <br /> <br />City Attorney said that, as a general policy" litigants in our courts are not entitled <br />to recover attorney fees, unless specifically provided by statute. The Ci ty Council <br />would have the authority to compensate someone, but it was not part of the judgment <br />that the litigant would receive attorney fees. The court could have awarded costs <br />to either party, but it did not, and there is no basis in law for the City to be required ~ <br /> <br /> <br />8/23/71 - 1 <br />~ <br />