08/11/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I . Mr',Murra:y,move'd'secon-d-'by Mr. Ketler tha't staff'findings supporting l-A-6 the zon-irg of propert.y _ east of' Wi ll'<ikenzie Road north of Cal .young Road to R-,2" I'D" and property west' of Wil:lakenzie Roa-d to R--2 SR, as set forth in Planning Commissionst'aff notes of July 1_, 1975 beadop,ted by 'reference thereto; tha:t th-e hi 1.1 ,asamen'ded be. read t.he, see-ond time by 'counc i.1 ' bi 11 . number, only., with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Councilman Kell'er:asked if-it wa:s Mr~Murray's intent to exc1ude the one ownership feature.. Mr. Murray said it w'as. Councilman'Haws said he would vote, for the motion. He couldn't understand the Com- mission's reasoning in making the recommendation they did and hope that a joint session would clarify their thinking. Mayor Atlqerson reminded -the Council ,that any action contrary to, a Commission" recommend- tioo. would automatically go to a j oint session of the Commission and',Council. Councilman Bradley thought division of the motion would be appropriate to remove doubt abo~t vote of individual Council members. He wondered whether a vote in favor of this motIon would be a vot~ against the Commission's recommendation. Mayor Anderson said it would b~cause the motIon was contrary to the Commission recommendation for single ownershIp. Mr. Bradley thought it would be simpler to separate the motion. He said he would v~te against the motion, not because he did not favor the rezoning but be- cause he dId not favor separate ownership. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Lacking unanimous consent - all counci~ members present voting aye, except Councilman Bradley voting no - the bIll was held for second reading. It was understood the issue would be referred to a joint session of the ~ Planning Commission and Council. C. Code Amendmen~s 1. Invalid Coach Operation - Associated Consultants, ,Inc. Invalid Coach Operation - Associated Consultants, Inc., proposed amendment to the city code which would delete the requirement for both a driver and attendant in the operation of an invalid coach. Copies of proposed amendment were distributed to Council members with agenda. The amendment would make the requirement for both driver and attendant applicable only to emergency ambulances. Establishment of rates for the invalid coach operation would be necessary. The Council would also be re- quired to hold a public hearing on applications for operation of invalid coaches to determine whether applicants qualify and whether additional licensed operators are necessary to meet the needs and requirements of the city or if the applicant is un- qualified and additional services are not needed. It was noted on the agenda that present Council-approved rates for an in~alid coach oRerated by the Eugene-Springfield Ambulance Service require a driver and an attendant and are $12.00 for starting fee, 40~ per mile plus other charges for time and additional services. Councilman williams asked whether there were standards available on whi'ch staff would make its recommendations about whether an applicant qualified for service. Sherm Flogstad, finance director, said there were no set standards so far as they concerned qualifications for an operator. The licensing process, he said, involved referral to the police pepartmentfor character reference. Assistant Manager added that the character reference was p~rt of standard broad requirements in the code for all 4It 'business license applications. This application for operation of ?n invalid coach ' - would come under ambulance regulations containing requirements in addition to having 8/11/75 - 4 441'