My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/27/1959 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1959
>
04/27/1959 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2007 2:53:02 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 3:35:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
4/27/1959
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />~ <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />4!~?/~9 <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i' <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I, <br />II <br />II <br />II <br />, <br /> <br /> <br />I <br />;1 <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />1 <br />I <br />! <br />I <br />! <br />I <br />\1 <br />il <br />II <br />il <br />!I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />II <br /> <br />MR. RODERICK ALSO INDICATED THAT THE ENGINEERS' ESTIMATES fOR THE ADDITION TO <br />THE C1TY'S TRICKLING FILTER IS $500,000.00. <br /> <br />IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE REPORT OF CORNELL, HOWLAND, HAYES & MERRYfIELD BE <br />ACCEPTED AND THAT EUGENE APPLY TO THE fEDERAL GOVERNMENT fOR A GRANT. <br /> <br />As AN ADDENDA TO THE DISCUSSION, THE QUESTION WAS RAISED AS TO HOW MUCH ADDI- <br />TIONAL CAPACITY IS REQUIRED AT THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT BY REASON Of THE <br />fRUIT GROWERS PROCESSING ACTIVITY. MR. RODERICK STATED THAT THE PROBLEM IS <br />NOT VOLUME, BUT IS ORGANIC LOAD, AND THAT IT IS THIS ORGANIC LOAD AND THE HIGH <br />SUGAR CONTENT AND CHLORINE DEMAND THAT CAUSES THE PROBLEM AT THE TREATMENT <br />PLANT. <br /> <br />WITH RESPECT TO A QUESTION Of WHAT THE ANTICIPATED COST OF, THE SEPARATION OF <br />THE STORM AND SANITARY SYSTEMS IN EUGENE MIGHT BE, MR. RODERICK INDICATED HIS <br />"SHOTGUN ESTIMATE" WOULD BE $10,000,000.00. <br /> <br />WITH RESPECT TO A QUESTION ON WHETHER THE CITY ~N A 5-YEAR PLAN WOULD DO BETTER <br />TO CONCENTRATE ON THE WEST SIDE MAIN OR TO SEPARATE THE COMBINATION SYSTEM, <br />MR. RODERICK STATED THE CITY IS IN A BAD SITUATION AND THAT jN HIS OPINIO~ A <br />PLAN SHOULD BE DEVELOPED TO TAKE CARE OF THE EMERGENCY SITUATIONS AND AT THE <br />SAME TIME DEVELOP A COMPLETE PLAN THAT WILL IN THE LONG RUN SOLVE iTHE PROBLEM <br />TOGETHER WITH THE ABILITY TO FINANCE THE JOB. IT WAS HIS OPINION THAT WE MUST <br />DEVELOP SOME PLAN TO RELIEVE THE SITUATION AS BEST WE CAN fOR THE NEXT WINTER <br />PERIOD. <br /> <br />IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR. CHATT THAT ITEM 4 Of THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE <br />APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. <br /> <br />5. BOARD OF ApPEALS REPORT - APRIL 8, 1959 <br />A. REQUEST BY fIRST EVANGELICAL UNITED BRETHREN CHURCH FOR VARIANCE IN RE- <br />QUIRED SETBACK AT 8TH AVENUE AND MONROE STREET TO CONSTRUCT ADDITION TO <br />BUILDING - A REQUEST fOR A VARIANCE FROM THE 20' SETBACK TO A 3' SETBACK <br />ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE TOGETHER WITH A PROPOSED PLOT PLAN WAS PRE- <br />SENTED TO THE COMMITTEE. MR. CORNER, CHAIRMAN Of THE CHURCH BUILDING <br />COMMITTEE, WAS PRESENT AND STATED THAT THE OWNER TO THE WEST HAD NO OB- <br />JECTION TO THE ADDITION TO THE CHURCH AND THAT THE ALLEY PROJECTED ON <br />THE SOUTH. THE BOARD OF ApPEALS REPORT POINTS OUT THAT THE PROPOSED <br />BUILDING WOULD BE DIRECTLY ON THE ALLEY LINE ON THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE <br />AND fURTHER STATES THAT A 10' SETBACK fROM THE PROPERTY LINE ON CORNER <br />LOTS IN AN R-2 ZONE, WHICH IS THE ZONE, IN THIS AREA, IS REQUIRED, AND, <br />THAT AN R-2 ZONE ALLOWS ONLY 40% COVERAGE OF THE LOT AREA. IT WAS 'ALSO <br />POINT~D OUT THAT NO PROVISION HAD BEEN MADE FOR OFf-STREET PARKING, AND <br />THE BOARD'Of ApPEALS RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF _THE REQUE~T. MR. C9RNER <br />POINTED OUT THAT THE CHURCH HAS CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS WITH ABUTTING <br />BUSINESSES AND WOULD BE, RAZING THE PARSONAGE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH Of <br />THE CHURCH WHICH WOULD ALLOW ADEQUATE OFF-STREET PARKING. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />! <br />! <br />I <br />I <br />II <br />II <br />I <br />r <br />Ii <br />l' <br />i <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />! <br />21 <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />SOME DISCUSSION WAS HAD AS TO WHETHER A VARIANCE WAS THE BEST SOLUTION <br />TO THIS PROBLEM OR WHETHER THE AREA SHOULD BE ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL USAGE <br />WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CHURCH TO BUILD TO THE LINE AT ALL SIDES. IT WAS <br />MOVED BY MR. CHATT SECONDED BY MR. LINDEEN THAT THE VARIANCE BE GRANTED <br />ON THE WEST BOUNDARY LINE- AS REQUESTED WHICH WOULD ALLOW fOR A 3' SET- <br />BACK ON THE WEST BOUNDARY. fOLLOWING SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS SUBJECT, <br />IT WAS MOVED BY MR. MCGAffEY SECONDED BY MR. MOYER THAT THE MATTER BE <br />TABLED UNTIL A REVISED PLAN WAS RECEIVED. MOTION TO TABLE WAS DEFEATED. <br />ON VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION APPROVING THE VARIANCE, THE MOTJON CARRIED. <br /> <br />IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR. CHATT THAT ITEM 5A OF THE COMMITTEE ,REPORT <br />BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. <br /> <br />6. DISCUSSION-REGARDING PROPOSAL TO VACATE ALLEY BETWEEN PEARL AND HIGH STREETS AND <br />BETWEEN 17TH AND 18TH AVENUES - THE CI,TY ATTORNEY STATED THE PENDING CONDEMNA- <br />TION SUIT Of THE CITY Of EUGENE VS PAUL W. CAMPBELL CONCERNING CONDEMNATION <br />Of PROPERTY FOR THE AMAZON RIGHT-Of-WAY LOCATED BETWEEN PEARL AND ,HIGH STREETS <br />AND BETWEEN 17TH AND 18TH AVENUES WAS NOW SET fOR HEAR I NG. THE CITY ATTORNEY <br />STATED THE CITY WOULD BE IN A MORE ADVANTAGEOUS POSITION IF THEY AGREED TO <br />VACATE THE NORTH/SOUTH ALLEY RUNNING BETWEEN PEARL AND HIGH STREETS fROM 17TH <br />TO 18TH AVENUE SINCE THE PROPERTY HOLDER, MR. CAMPBELL, WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE <br />BETTER USE or HIS PROPERTY. THE COMMITTEE CONSIDERED THIS MATTER, AND ON <br />MOTION BY MR. MOLHOLM SECONDED BY MR. CHATT, RECOMMENDED THAT THE ALLEY <br />VACATION AS STATED ABOVE BE INITIATED, M~SSRS. LINDEEN AND WILSON VOTING NAY. <br /> <br />I <br />\ <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />II <br />I <br />3\ <br />I <br />\ <br />I <br />I <br />~': <br /> <br />IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR. CHATT THAT ITEM 6 Of THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE <br />HELD OVER. MOTION CARRIED. <br /> <br />7. DISCUSSION REGARDING PIONEER MEMORIAL CEMETERY AND SB 304 - MR.HAROLD EDMUNDS <br />AND OTHERS APPEARED BEfORE THE COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS WITH THE COMMITTEE THE <br />EffECT Of sa 304 AND ACTION TAKEN BY THE COUNCIL AT THEIR MEETING Of APRIL 13, <br />.~S~ WITH REGARD TO SB 304. MR. EDMUNDS STATED THAT THE DIRECTORS OF PIONEER <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />l' <br />~ <br />Ii <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />'i <br />I' <br />iJ <br />Ii <br />d <br />q <br />" <br />\1 <br />" <br /> <br />" <br />;! <br />I' <br />:1 <br />Ii <br />" <br />il <br />Ii <br />Ii <br />" <br />,I <br />Ii <br />d <br />I! <br />I <br />,I <br />I' <br />" <br />il <br />:\ <br />" <br />I, <br />ii <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />il <br />:1 <br />Ii <br />II <br /> <br />:, <br />Ii <br />\i <br />I' <br />I' <br />I' <br />:\ <br />Ii <br />" <br />:1 <br />" <br /> <br />ii <br />I <br />I, <br />i' <br />,I <br />:1 <br />}' <br />\1 <br />I' <br />.t <br />I: <br />'I <br />I' <br />II <br />Ii <br />" <br />" <br />I, <br />I: <br />j! <br />~ ~ <br />" <br />1 ~ <br />i: <br />:1 <br />ii <br />,I <br />II <br />,I <br />:1 <br />i' <br />il <br />:i <br />I, <br />Ii <br />II <br />:I <br />.. <br />I' <br /> <br />II <br />,I <br />II <br />I, <br />I: <br />ii <br />II <br />Ii <br />I! <br />I <br />Ii <br />:1 <br />I <br />Ii <br />II <br />lj <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.