|
<br />e
<br />
<br />4,09 ~
<br />
<br />-=---="":~------- -------~--- '--- - - ~- - - - -- - - -~- _.. - ---
<br />
<br />.--- -- ....---
<br />- ,
<br />
<br />I / ~ 2/5~
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />1
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />I
<br />
<br />'i
<br />
<br />C. REQUEST ~f MRS. MARGIE TODD fOR VARIANCE.TOCONSTRUCTSECOND RESIDENCE ON
<br />LOT AT 2533 KINCAID STREET - IT WAS INDICATED THAT THE PLANNING ,COMMISSIO~
<br />HAD CONSIDERED A REQUEST fROM MRS. TODD fOR PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND
<br />HOUSE I~ AN AREA ZONED ft-I SINGLE fAMI~Y, AND THAT THE PL~NNING COMMISSION
<br />HAD CONDITIONALLY RECOMMENDED THE V~RIANCE BE GRANTED ALLOWING THE ADDI-
<br />TIONAL HOUSE. THE CONDITION IS THAT MRS. TODD AGREE TO THE REMOVAL Of THE
<br />EXISTING HOUSE ON THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN TEN YEARS, AND THI~ CO~-
<br />DITION WAS AGREED TO BY MRS. TODD. _THE COMMITTEE CONSIDERED THIS MATTER
<br />AND RECOMMENDED THAT THE REPORT Of THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALLOWING THE
<br />VARIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS BE UPHELD.
<br />
<br />t
<br />I
<br />'I
<br />~
<br />,I
<br />~I
<br />;....jl
<br />
<br />"
<br />Ii
<br />j,
<br />
<br />:1
<br />;1
<br />il
<br />1'1
<br />
<br />,:
<br />I!:
<br />If
<br />II
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />II
<br />1\
<br />Iii
<br />I
<br />Ii
<br />I:
<br />'"
<br />II
<br />
<br />D. DISCUSSION ,REGARDING AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING SETBACK FOR
<br />HAL f-DED I CA TED STREETS - AN;',AMENDMENT TO SECT ION XV I, SUB-SECT ION F. I. D.
<br />CONCERNING SETBACK fROM HALf-DEDICATED STREETS WAS READ TO THE COMMITTEE
<br />WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THAT IN AREAS WHERE ONLY ONE-HALf A STREET IS DEDICATED,
<br />SETBACKS BE DETERMINED,f"ROM,THE.STANOARD WIDTH, AND TA~T fROM THE AREA Of,
<br />THE STANDARD STREET WIDTH THE REGULAR SETBACK fOR ANY BUILDING BE DETERMINED.
<br />THE COMMITTEE CONSIDERED THIS ITEM AND RECOMMENDED THE APPROVAL Of THE AMEND-
<br />MENT TO THE ZON I NG ORD I NANCE AS PRESENTED BY THE PlANN I'NG COMM I SS I ON. ,
<br />
<br />E. REPORT TO THE COUNCIL ON THE ADV,ISABILlTY Of THE CITY'S ESTABLISHING A
<br />SEPARATE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT - A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE COMMON COUNCIL
<br />AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON JANUARY 6, 1959 WAS PRESENTED TO
<br />THE COMMITTEE fOR CONSIDERATION. No ACTIGN WAS TAKEN AND'IT WAS RECOMMENDED
<br />THAT THIS ITEM BE HELD fOR fURTHER STUDY. MOTION CARRIED WITH MRS. LAURIS
<br />VOTING NAY.
<br />
<br />I'
<br />
<br />Ii
<br />1'\
<br />
<br />Ii
<br />!,
<br />I,
<br />I
<br />1:'1
<br />Ii:
<br />
<br />,
<br />I'
<br />
<br />Ii
<br />I)
<br />
<br />II
<br />Ii
<br />11
<br />"
<br />,',
<br />I
<br />"
<br />
<br />Ii
<br />"
<br />
<br />5. REQUEST Of MILK DISTRIBUTORS fOR REVIEW Of PROPOSED LICENSE fEE fOR MILK DIS-
<br />TRIBUTION - REPRESENTATIVES Of THREE MILK DISTRIBUTION ~~ANTS LOqATED WITHIN
<br />THE CITY Of EUGENE ATTENDED THE MEETING AND PRESENTED THEIR VIEWPOINT WITH
<br />RESPECT TO THE PRO~OStp INCREASE IN fEES fOR MILKDISTRIBUTORS~ MR. GORDON
<br />COLEMAN Of MEDO-LAND CREAMERY COMPANY INDICATED HE fEELS THAT THE PROPOSED
<br />FEE WHICH_WOULD INCREASE DISTRIBUTORS LICENSE FROM 1/2~ PER POUND Of BUTTER-
<br />fAT PROCESSED IN THE BOTTLED AND CANNED TRADE TO 3/4~ PER POUND Of BUTTERfAT
<br />IS NOT JUSTIfIED AND IS REVENUE PRODUCING ONLY. HE fURTHER INDICATED THAT
<br />REPRESENTATIVES Of THE U. S. DEPARTMENT Of AGRICULTURE COULD BE ENGAGED fROM
<br />ROSEBURG fOR A fEE 0f"'$25.00,PER DAY,:AND THAT OiT:IlIElnCnlES WITHIN THE STATE
<br />CHARGE CHARGE A fEE CONS.IDERABLY LESS, fOR MILK DISTRIBUTORS. SPECltlCAL:LY,
<br />PORTLAND WAS QUOTED AS CHARGING $40 PER YEAR; AND KLAMATH FALLS, $35.00 PER
<br />YEAR. MR. COLEMAN INDICATED THAT THE DAIRY INDUSTRY HAD HAD GOOD RELATIONS
<br />WITH THE INSPECTORj BUT THAT HE DOES, NOT SEE THE NECES~ITY:fOR EUGEN~,DOING
<br />A COMPLETE MILK INSPECTION JOB SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE THE STATE~DER-
<br />TAKE A PART OR ALL OF SUCH WORK. MR. COLEMAN ALSO INDICATED THAT HE BELIEVES
<br />MILK INSPECTION IS fOR THE,BENEtlT Of THE CONSUMING PUBLIC AND LIKENED, SUCH
<br />INSPECTION: TO THE OPERATi.ONOF POLICE,:FIRE AND: OTHER SERVICE'DEPART~ENTS
<br />Of THE-CITY AND fEELS THAT THE GENERAL TAX PAYER SHOULD AID IN THE COST Of
<br />SUCH INSPECTION. HE fURTHER STATED THAT HE BELIEVES THAT THE LICENSE fEE
<br />SHOULD BE LOWERED, NOT RAISED, AND OffERED AS ONE SUGGESTION THAT THE CITY
<br />CEASE iNSPECTiON Of.THE'MILK PRODUCERS AND 'RETAIN ONLY ONE MAN TO' INSPECT
<br />THE DISTRIBUTORS. , ,
<br />
<br />I
<br />i
<br />,
<br />(
<br />I
<br />
<br />;1
<br />
<br />"
<br />Ii
<br />I,:
<br />I:,
<br />,:
<br />"
<br />I:
<br />Ii
<br />/:
<br />Ii
<br />:1
<br />
<br />I:
<br />i
<br />t:
<br />I,
<br />I~
<br />I'
<br />
<br />1\
<br />1':
<br />I'
<br />I,
<br />I'
<br />I:
<br />Ii
<br />I:
<br />Ii
<br />I'
<br />.I
<br />I;
<br />
<br />MR. KESEY Of EUGENE FARMERS CREAMERY AND MR. FISH Of ECHO SP.RING DAIRY':BOTH
<br />INDICATED THEY WOULD BE RELUCTANT TO SEE THE CITY GIVE UP MILK INSPECTION,
<br />INDICATING THEY BELIEVE THE CITY DOES A BETTER JOB THAN THE STATE.
<br />
<br />'1 ,~
<br />
<br />AfTER SOME DISCUSSION ON THE QUESTION OF THE DESIRABILITY OF MAINTAINING MILK
<br />INSPECTION WITHIN THE CITY OR LETTING THE STATE DO SUCH:WORK, IT WAS RECOM~
<br />MENDED THAT THIS ITEM BE REfERRED TO THE PUB~IC S~fETY COMMITTEE TO STUDY
<br />THE POSSIBILITY Of CUTTING OUT THE DEPARTMENT ENTIRELY OR CUTTING OUT SOME
<br />PORTION Of THE DEPARTMENT."
<br />
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I!
<br />~I
<br />j:1
<br />I
<br />
<br />" '
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED. BY MR. SHEARER SECONO'E-D BY MRS. -LA.UR:IS- THAT fTEM I Of' THE',REPO~T Of THE COMMITTEE
<br />Of THE WHOLE BE APPROVED,. MOT ION CARR I ED WITH MR. LINDEEN VOT I NG NAY.
<br />
<br />'"
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MRS. LAURIS THAT ITEM 2 OF THE REPORT Of THE COMMITTEE
<br />Of THE WHOLE BE APPROVED:. MOT ION CARR I ED., , ,
<br />
<br />;\
<br />;1
<br />
<br />I T WAS MOVED BY. MR. SHEARER SECONDED I BY MRS. 'LAUR IS :rHAT ITEM 4, A. I Of THE REPOR,T Of THE COMM I TTEE !I
<br />OF THE WHOLE BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED.
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED By,MR. SHEARER SECONDED, BY MRS. LAURIS THAT ITEM,3 Of THE REPORT OF" THE COMMITTEE
<br />Of THE WHOLE BE APPROVED~ MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. LINDEEN VOTING NAY.
<br />
<br />'-. "
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MRS. LAlJR IS THA.TI TEM 4 B., OfTtlE REPORT Of THE COMMITTEE
<br />Of THE WHOLE BE APPROVED. MOTION WITHDRAWN ' ~
<br />
<br />I IT WAS,MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED. BY MR...McGAffEY,THAJ. ITEM 4~; Of THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEEj
<br />'j Of THE WHOLE. BE REfERRED BACK,' TO:. :THE.. PLANN I NG_ COMM I SS ION,' fOR fURTHER: STUDY. _' MO.T ION CARR I ED. '
<br />l I
<br />
<br />Ii
<br />"
<br />I'
<br />r
<br />I
<br />;"
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MRS. LAURIS THAT ITEM 4 C. Of THE REPORT Of THE COMMITTEE
<br />Of THE WHOLE BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED.
<br />
<br />-""'IIlI1
<br />
|