Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> M I NUT E S <br /> EUGENE CITY COUNC I L <br /> November 25, 1974 <br /> -- Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the <br /> meeting held November 12, 1974 - was called to order by Council President Tom Williams in <br /> the absence of Mayor Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on November 25, 1974 in the Council Chamber with <br /> the following other Council members present: H. C. McDonald, Wickes Beal, Beth Camp be 11 , <br /> Gus Keller, Neil Murray, and Robert Wood. Absent was Councilman Hershner. <br /> (0001) I - Proclamation was presented canvassing votes cast in November 5, 1974 election showing <br /> the following results: <br /> Yes No <br /> Measure No. 51 - Amending city officers' compensation 11,458 17,666 <br /> Council Ward I - Louis F. Bonson 707 <br /> I <br /> <-- Raymond j. Bradley 1,920 <br /> Barry Hood 744 <br /> Denton O. Peterson 223 <br /> Clifford F. Shirley 398 <br /> Ward IV - Tom R. Williams 2,252 <br /> Ward V-D. W. Hamel 1,900 <br /> Mary L. Milhaupt 1,634 <br /> e Ward VI - Eric Haws 1,610 <br /> Tom F. Poage 1,239 <br /> Eugene Water & Electric Board - Director at Large - Marian B. Frank 14,012 <br /> Calvin L. Schmidt 14,014 <br /> Wards IV and V - George Adams 1,850 <br /> Taylor Ramsey 3,996 <br /> Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray to accept the proclamation. <br /> Motion carried unanimously. <br /> (0105) II - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested. <br /> Previously discussed in .committee on Nov.ember 20, 1974, (Present: Councn Pres)dent <br /> Wi'lliams [pr:esiding]' and Counci>l'members McDonald, Beal, Campbell, Keller, and Murray). <br /> Minutes of that meeting appear below printed in italics. <br /> A.~ssessment"P~nel Report, November 18, 1974 - No wr~ tten protests or requests to be <br /> Iheard at the November 18 hearing were received so the hearing panel ,was not convened, <br /> IAssistant Manager reported possibility of one property owner's want~ng to be heard / <br /> e 'at the November 25 Council meeting because notice of assessment was not received ;' <br /> luntil after the deadline for presenting objec~iC>._~S_u(f:;.B.675 through 684)... H.. ' <br /> t. ,T . _. '-."_", ._.... __._....._..... ..... ...._u_... ..,' '. ... .__...... _ . . . <br /> \~ ~ B. Rezoning to R-2 PD property north of Kins Row south of I-105 and east of Centenni~i"" <br /> ,Boulevard, Earl Green (2 73-37) - Copies of letter from Richard Miller, attorney for <br /> Earl Green, and petition from Mr. Green requesting Council action on the rezoning re- <br /> Iquest were previously distributed to council members. Included with the distribution <br /> jwas copy of Judge Spencer's opinion, remanding the issue back to the Council for action <br /> ,because of procedural errors in the Council's previous action on the rezoning. Also <br /> Idistributed previously were copies of city attorney's advice that appeal of the trial <br /> icourt's decision had been started,' therefore it would not seem appropriate for the <br /> ICouncil to act upon Mr. Green's petition for action upon the rezoning. Assistant <br /> IManager said staff would recommend following city attorney's advice in further defense <br /> ['of existing policy and because it was felt the Judge's opinion had very broad implica- <br /> !tions for municipalities in consideration of future zoning issues. <br /> Bob Moulton, representing Earl Green in the absence of Mr. Miller, said that if Council <br /> jmembers Williams, Murray, Wood, Beal, and Keller would not be present at the November 25 <br /> '[council meeting, his client would be willing to hold the matter over to the next session. <br /> \He said it was important that the issue be heard by at least those five people, acting <br /> ,in a judicial capacity. They were the five the Judge indicated would be eligible to <br /> - ,Imake a decipion. Mr. Moulton said filing of an appeal of the court's action would not <br /> ikeep the Council from acting. He added that action was taken over a year ago to re- <br /> Izone the property and the Judge had given the opinion that the petitioners had the I <br /> fright to have the request heard by the court (council) and the court (council) had I <br /> ]the right to hear the testimony - those hearing all of the testimony in a judicidal I <br /> I <br /> !capacity should make the decision. Mr. Moulton continued that aside from the pro- <br /> :c~!l.!l.Ei:!-.~..<J.~.If!.S!Lo.r:L_t.!:!!.q.I'.~ZO!!,~!!!I .hi!;d me! i_~~.__-=--,~,~-:!lOu!:..a..J)!?1TJc!~j!:?.'3.sing ~l_o.~r:.J!!" c:t ,",a ". __---' <br /> "'A'.,.,(::;;-. _' <br /> 3~& 11/25/74 - 1 <br />