02/24/1953 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

309~ e ~ , 1''\ ~.~ .. c'O ~ ~ ~ ij :1 '! Ii II ,i Ii II " r I Ii II i: II il I! " I' I, , II I: I (B) THE COMMITTEE AGAIN REVIEWED THE REQUEST OF MRS. MAE H. FRYE TO CONSTRUCT A DUPLEX ON HER LOT ON 24TH AVENUE JUST WEST OF PEARL STREET. THE COMMITTEE COULD NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION fOR GRANTING A VARIANCE Of LAND USE fOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DUPLEX IN THIS AREA, INASMUCH AS THE GENERAL PATTERN CONSISTS Of NICE, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THROUGHOUT, AND AGAIN RECOMMENDED THAT THIS VARIANCE BE DENIED. (C ) BUILDING ONLY WAS THE REQUEST Of GUSKE BROTHERS FOR A VARIANCE ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 19TH AND PATTERSON AGAIN REVIEWED BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. TO CONSTRUCT A ONE-STORY FOR PROFESSIONAL PURPOSES (D) THE APPLICATION OF MR. AND MRS. REES FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A ONE- STORY BUILDING ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH iND PATTERSON STREET FOR PROfESSIONAL PURPOSES ONLY WAS AGAIN REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE. (E) THE COMMITTEE REVIEWED THE-REQUEST OF M~. HARRy"N. WRIGHT FOR A VARI ANCE TO CONSTRUCT A ONE-STORY MEDICAL-DENTAL BUILDING ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 15TH AND ORCHARD STREETS. e I IT WA~ RECOMMENDED THAT ALL THREE O~ THESE REQUEST~ FOR VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT P~OFESSIONAL OFFICES 'BE DENIED. IT WAS RECOMME~DED THAT A STUDY BE MADE OF THE LEG.AL"STATUS OF THE COUNC'IL IN THIS CONNECTION BEFORE GRANTING ANY VA.RIANCES WHICH w~ul6 IN EFFE~T REZONE AREAS FOR A DIFfERiNT USE THAN THAT UNDE~ WHIC~ THEY ARE PRESEN~LY ZONED. IT WAS ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT A STUDY BE MADE BY A JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE PRESENT COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Of THE CITY. (F) THE REQUEST SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON OUTLOOK WAS STUDIED. THIS LOT WHICM IS SET Of MR. NELSON N. GRUBBE, 2724 KINCAID STREET TO CONSTRUCT A THE FRONT or LOT 3, BLOCK 16 OF THE FIRST ADDITION TO CITY MR. GRUBBE IS LIVING IN A SMALL HOUSE LOCATED ON THE REAR OF BACK 130 fEET FROM KINCAID STREET. ' . ACCOMPANYING LETTERS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY STATED THAT THEY FELT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE FRONT or THIS LOT WOULD GREATLY IMPROVE THE APPEARANCE OF THE ENTIRE NEIGHBOR~o6D. IT WAS AGREED BY THE COMMITTEE THAT A HOME PROPERLY CONSTRUCTED, WHICH MET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH SETBACK LINES AND AREA REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE THE ONLY AND INTENDED USE IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THIS LOT. IT WAS NOTED THAT SEVERAL OTHER SIMILAR CIRCUM- STANCES WERE PREVALENT IN THE AREA AND IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE COUNCIL GRANT THIS VARIANCE. 3. THE CITY MANAGER ADVISED THAT HE HAD FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE FROM ALLEN H. EATON RELATIVE TO PREVIOUS STREET AND SEWER ASSESSMENTS FOR FORECLOSURE OF PROPERTY BACK IN 1937. THE CITY MANAGER ADVISED THAT IN CONSULTING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE fOLLOWING LETTER HAD BEEN PREPARED TO SEND TO MR. EATON IN AN ENDEAVOR TO CLARIFY THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS CONNECTION. I "w I T H REF ERE N C E TOY 0 U R LET T E R 0 F J A N U A R Y 28 T H , I W ISH TO A 0 V I SET HAT I HAVE AGAIN TAKEN THIS UP WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. IT WAS NOT MY DESIRE TO SIDETRACK THIS ISSUE AS WE ALL ARE DESIROUS OF DOING THE EQUITABLE AND LEGAL THING IN CON- NECTION WITH THIS MATTER. As YOU KNOW, THE CITY ADMINISTRATION IS MERELY A REPRESENTATIVE Of THE TAXPAYERS AND ANY EXPENDITURE OF fUNDS MUST BE MADE UNDER AUTHORITY AND TE~M~ OF THE BUDGET OR MUST BE ~ASED UPON SOME LAW OR COURT DECISION. I :1 II 'I " Ii !: ji ,i 'I II Ii 'i I, , I Ii II I Ii ii Ii II q II II I, II 'I I, II Ii Ii Ii II II I; ': ,. THE COUNCIL COMMITTEES AGAIN CONSIDERED THIS CONTROVERSY AND IT HAS BEEN' SUGGESTED THAT YOU FILE A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SUIT AGAINST THE CITY SO THAT THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF OUR LIABILITY, IF ANY, CAN BE DETERMINED. THE CITY WOULD NOT OPPOSE SUCH A SUIT, BUT WOULD JOIN WI TH YOUR ATTORNEY IN PREPARING STIPULATED FACTS TO PRESENT TO THE COURT. BASED UPON THE STIPULATED fACTS, THE COURT COULD MAKE A DECISION UNDER WHICH THE CITY WOULD BE WARRANTED IN MAKING ANY EXPENDITURE DIRECTED BY THE COURT. SUCH A SUIT WOULD NOT INVOLVE A TRIAL IN THE ORDINARY SENSE THAT A HEARING WOULD HAVE TO BE HELD. IT WOULD BE SIMPLY PRESENTED TO THE JUDGE UPON THE WRITTEN RECORD. THE COST INVOLVED WOULD BE RELATIVELY SMALL AND I HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT .IT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY FOR YOU TO MAKE A TRIP BACK TO EUGENE IN ORDER TO PRESENT THE CASE. e As PREVIOUSLY STATED IN MY LETTER, WE ARE UNABLE TO DETERMINE IF THE CITY ACTUALLY HAS ~NY LIABILITY AND IF THEY SHOULD HAVE, HOW MUCH IT SHOULD BE. FROM A LEGAL AND BUDGETARY STANDPOINT, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING VERY DEFINITE AND CONCRETE UPON WHICH TO BASE ANY EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS. IF YOU CONCUR IN THIS SUGGESTION OF fiLING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SUIT, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT YOU CONTACT YOUR ATTORNEY AND HAVE HIM GET IN TOUCH WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, MR. JOHN PENNINGTON AND THEY CAN' WORK OUT THE PROCEDURE TOGETHER. You MAY REST ASSURED THAT THE COUNCIL AND ALL Of THE CITY OFfICIALS ARE INTERESTED IN SETTLING THIS MATTER IN THE PROPER WAY." 4. BIDS WERE OPENED FOR A ONE-HALF TON PICK-UP AT 10:00 A.M. ON FEBRUARY 20TH AND TABULATED AS FOLLOWS: e ~