|
<br /> 7 ~
<br />e
<br /> 10/14/57
<br />------------_.~~------ ------~-----_._--------_.__._----- -.-------..----------' ------- ---~- .~-- --~._-----~ ------~-
<br />-=-----;--=-~;;--'=----_.._._--~-:;;==:.---=-- ------ -' - _.-------- ----- --- -'---~ --- -~~~---- - _.. ----.- -- ----- ------ ~-_._- - -.-~~ .-......--- ------ ------- -,........,.... -~-- ---~ ...-----:;;;.;..
<br />---- ____ - ___ __ _. __ u_ _______ ____no. _____._ __ - -- -- ~ --
<br />~-o--...,.__ ~~'''::-:'--_~-:-- .-=-~-=='T7~__. .._ __ .-.-C-~~_ -~-'_-:--:--=---=~""::- -c-.:..-~~~_- _~_--______=_~_:.:-~_=__:.. --~.: --=--- - -"- -- -- - -- --- -. --------- - . - -- _. ------.'. -- - -~-- + -- -- --.---
<br />I IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE CITY HAD ACQUIRED A LOT WITH A 81.5' fRONTAGE ON FERRY STREET
<br /> AND A 60' DEPTH fOR SEWER ASSESSMENT, AND THAT THE COST OF THE AS~SSMENT AND FORE-
<br /> CLOSURE WAS $125.07. ,IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE CITY HAS A 60' RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR
<br /> FERRY STREET ,SOUTH OF-THIS PROPERTY BUT ONLY 40' ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY AND THAT
<br /> THE CITY MIGHT WELL RESERVE 10' FOR STREET PURPOSES.WHICH WOULD LEAVE THE LOT
<br /> 8 I . 5' X 50'. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION.REGARDING THE POSSIBILITIES OF SALE, IT WAS
<br /> RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY MANAGER PROVIDE AN APPRAISAL OF THE LOT LESS THE 10 ' I
<br /> I
<br /> FOR STREET PURPOSES.
<br /> I 7. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATiON FOR PROPER CiTY OFFICIALS TO SIGN AGREEMENT WITH ,SOUTHERN
<br /> PACifiC COMPANY CONCEENING BUILDING OF SEWER ON JEffERSON STREET UNDER THE RAILROAD
<br /> 1 IS CONSTRUCTING A 54~ SEWER LINE UNDER THE
<br /> I TRACKS - IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE CITY I
<br /> SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS AT JEFfERSON STREET AND THAT IT APPEARS THAT THE
<br /> CROSSING IS IN,OWNERSHIP OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, AND THEY DESIRE A FORMAL i
<br /> AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH SEWER LINE BEFORE CONSTRUCTION IS STARTED. .I
<br /> THE VARIOUS RAMIFICATIONS OF THE AGREEMENT'WERE DISCUSSED, AND IT WAS RECOMMENDED '.
<br /> !
<br /> THAT THE PROPER CITY OFFICIALS BE AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE DOCUMENT. I
<br />e I 'I
<br /> ,I
<br /> I 8. REQUEST BY SOUTHERN PAC~FIC COMPANY FOR FRANCHISE FOR CROSSING MCKINLEY STREET WITH I
<br /> , . . - . IN AREA BETWEEN BROADWAY AND 10TH AVENUE - REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COM- I
<br /> A SPUR TRACK
<br /> I MITTEE VISITED THE SITE OF THE PROPOSED SPUR TRACK, AND IT WAS,POINTED OUT THAT SUC ,I
<br /> I I
<br /> I SPUR TRACKS WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA OF THE
<br /> I CITY. THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT THE FRANCHISE FOR THE SPUR TRACK BE APPROVED.
<br /> I I
<br />1 I
<br /> I I PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE I
<br /> I I. DISCUSSION CONCERNING DRY ZONE AROUND THE UNIVERSITY O~ OREGON AND COMMU~ICATIONS 'I
<br /> I "
<br /> CONCERNING SUCH DRY ZONE - THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE DISCUSSED THE APPLICATION I
<br /> I OF THE DRY ZONE AROUND THE UNIVERSITY AND THE PROPOSEDMEETING,BETWEEN REPRESENTA- I
<br /> I
<br /> I TIVES OF THE UNIVERSITY AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE OF THE COUNciL. 'A LETTER
<br /> ,
<br /> I FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON WAS READ TO THE COMMITTEE IN WHICH
<br /> , IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNIVERSITY AND THE COUNCIL MIGHT MEET
<br /> I
<br /> FOR A'GENERAL' DISCUSSION OF THE BOUNDARY PROBLEM AS A WHOLE BUT WITHOUT THE CON-
<br /> I TEMPLATION THAT SUCH A GROUP WOULD MEET TO CONSIDER INDIVIDUAL L~QUOR LiCENSE AP-
<br /> I PLlCATIONS. THERE WAS SOME GENERAL DISCUSSION ON THE SUBJECT OF A DRY ZONE, AND
<br /> IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT A MEETING BETWEEN THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL
<br /> ,I AND REPRESENTATIVES Of THE UNIVERSITY BE HELD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. No FORMAL ACTION I
<br /> I WAS TAKEN."
<br /> I ' .'
<br /> I IT WAS MOVED BY MR.-WATSON SECONDED BY MR. HARTMAN THAT THE REPORT OF THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
<br /> I MOTION CARRIED.
<br /> I BE ADOPTED.
<br /> I
<br /> I No ACTION WAS TAKEN, ON THE REPORT'Of THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. I
<br /> - 1
<br /> 2 A REPORT OF THE MEETING BETWEEN THE LANE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE OF THE
<br /> ,I
<br /> COUNCIL HELD ON OCTOBER 7, 1957 - RE: BUILDING PERMIT FOR LANE COUNTY COURTHOUSE, WAS SUBMITTED AND I
<br /> READ AS FOLLOWS: j
<br /> I i
<br /> I
<br /> I "PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS STRAUB, NIELSEN AND PETERSEN;, COUNCILMEN WATSON, SHEARER AND' i
<br />I i
<br /> EDMUNDS; MR. GEORGE WOODRICH, DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; MR. WALT VANORDEN, I
<br /> LANE 'COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTOR; MR. 'ROBERT WILMSEN; WILMSEN & ENDICOTT, I
<br /> ARCHITECTURAL FIRM; CITY MANAGER; CITY ATTORNEY; CITY RECORDER; DON BONHAM, I
<br /> EUGENE REGI STER-GUARD; I AND TOM JACQUES) EUGENE. REGISTER-GUARD. I
<br /> ' '
<br /> ..
<br /> THE MEETING WAS CALLED FOR A DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY: COMMISSIONERS I
<br /> AND THE PUBL I C WORKSCOMM I TTEE Of THE COUNC I L REGARD ING niE I SSUANCE OF A BU I LD I NG I
<br /> PERM I T FOR THE CONSTRUCT ION OF THE, LANE COUNTY COt.R THO USE . I
<br />e MR. WOODR I CH INDICATED THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAD ISSUED AN OPINION THAT
<br /> I
<br /> THE 'COUNTY IS AN ENTITY OF THE STATE 'AND fOR SUCH REASON WAS NOT SUBJECT, TO LOCAL I
<br /> I ORDINANCES WITH, RESPECT TO THE BUILDING CODE, AND WAS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A COUNTY I
<br /> COURTHOUSE BUILDING AS A SEAT OF GOVERNMENT FOR LANE COUNTY~ THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S I
<br /> OFFICE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE~'DID NbT BELIEVE THAT THIS ENTIRE SUBJECT SHOULD I
<br /> , j
<br /> BE BASED' ON A LEGAL TECHNICALITY BUT SHOULD BE BASED ON A- fEELING OF MUTUAL COOPERA- .I
<br /> TIONBETWEEN THE TWO GOVERNING BODIES CONCERNED. I
<br /> I
<br /> I RELATIVELY ALL FACETS OF THE SITUATION WERE EXPLORED INCLUDING COUNTy-CITY RECIPRO- !
<br /> i
<br /> CITY WITH RESPECT TO,BUILDINGPERMIT FEES, THE QUESTION OF- EQUITABLENESS OF ONE TAXING I
<br /> I GROUP IN THE COUNTY SUPPORTING, THE WHOLE I NSPECT ION SERV I CE FOR THE. WHOLE COUNTY, .AND I
<br /> I
<br /> I THE NECESSITY"FOR THE CITY TO MAINTAIN THE RIGHT OF INSPECTION OVER, ALL BUILDINGS CON- I
<br /> STRUCTED. W I'TH I N ITS JURISDICTION.' J
<br /> I
<br />I REPRESENTAT I VES OF LANE ,COUNTY AND THE I R ARCH I TECT INDICATED THAT A NUMBER OF IN- I
<br /> SPECTION PROCEDURES ON VARIOUS STAGES OF THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION HAD BEEN ARRANGED ,
<br /> INCLUDING A CLERK Of THE WORKS, INSPECTION OF THE STRUCTURAL ASPECTS BY THE COUNTY I
<br /> I BUILDING INSPECTOR, SPECIAL STEEL INSPECTION) WELDING INSPECTION, PLUMBING I,NSPECT ION
<br /> , BY A LOCAL INSPECTOR AS WELL AS THE STATE BOARD OF HEALTH, AND GENERAL INSPECTION BY THE
<br /> i STATE BOARD Of LABOR WITH RESPECT TO ANY ITEMS WHICH MIGHT BE DANGEROUS TO THE PUBLIC.
<br /> I THE ~ENERAL THESIS OF THE MEETING ~AS THAT THE CITY WISHED TO PROTECT ITS RIGHT TO
<br /> I INSPECT ANY A~D ALL BUILDINGS BEING ERECTED WITHIN THE CITY, THAT NO MOVE SHOULD BE
<br />e 1
<br /> I i
<br /> I
<br /> J' L.1
<br /> "
<br />
|