|
<br /> ~1 8 t>> I
<br /> e
<br /> 9/28/59
<br /> - - - .
<br /> . - - - - - -. -- - ,,- - - - . - - - -
<br /> ---~--~--,--~-_._---- ---~--------
<br /> ------ ---- ------- -------...------~-
<br /> -- - - -- - - - -. _ __ __ __ __. __ _ _ __ T
<br /> I r -. .
<br /> A REPORT Of THE COMMITTEE MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 25, 1959 WAS SUBMITTED AND READ AS fOLLOWS: I
<br /> "PRESENT: MAYOR CONE; COUNCILMEN SHEARER, LAURIS, MOLHOLM, MCGAffEY; CHATT, MOYER, t
<br /> WILSON AND SWANSON; CITY MANAGER; CITY RECORDER; CITY ATTORNEY; DIRECTOR ~f I
<br /> PUBLIC WORKS; LTS. SMARTT AND McNEW, POLICE DEPARTMENT; TRAffiC ENGINEER; I
<br /> CHIEf Of .POLICE; ADMINISTRATIVE ASSI~TANT; RALPH RODERICK Of CORNELL, How-
<br /> LAND, HAYES & MERRYfiELD; NILE PAULL AND LARRY COONS, URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY; I
<br /> MESSRS. BARGER, CABLE, PITKIN, FISH, HUNTER AND DUPREY, AND OTHER INTERESTED I
<br /> CCITIZENS; DAN WYANT, EUGENE REGISTER-GUARD.
<br /> I I. COMMUNICATION CONCERNING UNIVERSITY Of OREGON PROPERTY ON TOP Of SKINNERS BUTTE - I'
<br /> A LETTER fROM MR. J. O. LINDSTROM, BUSINESS MANAGER Of THE UNIVERSITY Of OREGON, 'I
<br /> WAS READ TO THE COMMITTEE WITH REfERENCE TO THE ,PROPERTY OWNED BY THE UNIVERSITY II
<br /> ON SKINNERS BUTTE. THE LETTER INDICATED THAT MR. LINDSTROM AND MR. HENDERSHOTT, 1
<br /> I
<br /> CITY ATTORNEY, HAD CONVERSED ON THIS SUBJECT AND THAT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE fOR I
<br /> i
<br /> THE UNIVERSITY TO DEED THE PROPERTY TO THE CITY BUT THEY DO NOT WISH TO DO THIS II
<br /> fOR TWO REASONS. ONE IS THAT fOR PUBLIC RELATIONS REASONS THE UNIVERSITY fEELS II e
<br /> IT WOULD BE UNWISE TO DEED THE LAND TO THE CITY WHEN THE DEED CONTAINS THIS RE- II
<br /> STRICTION AND SOME PROSPECTIVE DONORS, ESPECIALLY,SOME Of THE OLDER CITIZENS, II
<br /> MIGHT fEEL THAT IT DOES NOT PAY TO MAKE A.GlfT TO THE UNIVERSITY AS IT WOULD BE
<br /> GIVEN AWAY, AND THE UNIVERSITY HAS IN MIND THAT IT MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT II
<br /> AN EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION TOWER OR STATION ON SKINNERS BUTTE AND, THEREFORE, THEY
<br /> SHOULD.RESERVE TITLE fOR THIS ~OSSIBLE EDUCATIONAL.DEVELOPMENT. II
<br /> THE UNIVERSITY INDICATED THEY ARE STILL AGREEABLE TO MAKING THE LAND AVAILABLE II I
<br /> i
<br /> fOR CITY USE, RENT fREE... IT, WAS fURTHER INDICATED THAT IN MR. LINDSTROM'S BELIEf THE I
<br /> UNIVERSITY AND THE CITY Of EUGENE HAD COOPERATED WELL .. .- I
<br /> IN THE PAST ON OTHER ITEMS IN-
<br /> CLUDING THE RELOCATION Of GARfiELD STREET THROUGH THE WESTMORELAND HOUSING PROJECT.
<br /> I
<br /> SOME LITTLE DISCUSSION WAS HELD ON THIS, AND IT WAS RECOMMENDED THE COMMUNCATION BE I
<br /> RECEIVED AND PLACED ON fiLE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. l
<br /> IT WAS MOVED BY. MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MRS. LAURIS THAT ITEM I Of THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE I
<br /> APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED.,
<br /> I
<br /> 2 2. REQUEST BY BOARD Of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.TO LEGALIZE REMOVAL Of PARKING fROM
<br /> SOUTH SIDE Of 7TH AVENUE BETWEEN.WEST PARK AND EAST PARK STREETS - A LETTER fROM
<br /> THE BOARD Of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WAS READ REQUESTING THAT PARKING BE REMOVED
<br /> AS INDICATED ABOVE. THE LETTER STATED. THE REQUEST WAS MADE PRIMARILY fOR TWO I
<br /> REASONS, fIRST..THAT THE RIGHT TURN MOVEMENT fROM THE PARKING STRUCTURE WOULD I
<br /> GIVE THESE CARS AN OPPORTUNITY TO fEATHER INTO THE TRAfflC,PATTERN ON 7TH AVE- II
<br /> NUE, AND SECOND IT WOULD MAKE THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE MORE. VISIBLE fROM AN
<br /> II
<br /> AESTHETIC STANDPOINT If NO PARKING WERE ALLOWED IN fRONT Of THE COURTHOUSE. 'I
<br /> THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT THE REQUESTED REMOVAL Of , PARKING BE APPROVED. !I
<br /> II
<br /> MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. II
<br /> I ,t
<br /> I
<br /> IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR. MCGAffEY THAT ITEM 2 Of THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE !
<br /> I MOTION CARRIED, MR. WILSON VOTING NAY. I
<br /> I APPROVED. II
<br /> I
<br /> I ' "
<br /> IT WAS MOVED BY MR. WILSON SECONDED BY MR. SWANSON THAT THE, pROBLEM Of WHETHER THREE LANES II
<br /> OF TRAfFIC CAN BE MOVED ON 7TH AVENUE BETWEEN WEST PARK AND EAST PARK STREETS BE REfERRED II
<br /> TO THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER AND THAT HE ALSO STUDY THIS PROBLEM WIT~ REGARD TO INGRESS TO AND II
<br /> ,
<br /> I EGRESS FROM THE COUNTY PARKING STRUCTURE LOCATED BETWEEN WEST PARK AND OAK STREETS. Mo- l
<br /> TION CARRIED.
<br /> 3 3. REQUEST BY FIRE MARSHAL AND SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR TO INVOKE SECTIONS 11.37 , I -
<br /> 11.38 AND 11.39 Of THE EUGENE CITY CODE ON AN UNfINISHED BUILDING AT.2175 GRANT I
<br /> I STREET - A LETTER fROM THE FIRE MARSHAL AND SENIOR BUILD'NG INSPECTOR WAS READ r
<br /> IN WHICH IT WAS jNDICATED A HAZARDOUS BUILDING EXISTS AT 2175 GRANT STREET, THAT I
<br /> AN ATTEMPT HAD BEEN MADE TO fiNO THE OWNERS WHICH HAD PROVEN UNSUCCESSfUL, AND I
<br /> I
<br /> THAT THE BUILDING PRESENTS A HAZARD TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. REPRESENTATIVES Of THE
<br /> COMMITTEE VIEWED THE BUILDING AND fOUND IT IN A VERY DETERIORATE~ CONDITION, AND
<br /> THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT ABATEMENT PROCEDURE BE ,NVOKED ON THIS BUILDING.
<br /> MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. I,
<br /> IT WAS'MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MRS. LAURIS THAT ITEM 3 Of' THE COMMITJEE REPORT BE 1)
<br /> I
<br /> APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. I
<br /> 4 4. CONSIDERATION Of BOARD OF ApPEALS REPORT Of SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 1959:
<br /> j
<br /> A. REQUEST BY LAURENCE DUPREY fOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN 145- 1
<br /> 149 EAST 13TH AVENUE - THE BOARD Of ApPEALS CONSIDERED THE ABOVE REQUEST fOR
<br /> VARIANCE FROM 7' SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN. OffiCE I
<br /> B U I L 0 I NG . THE BOARD VIEWED A PLOT PLAN OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING AND STATED
<br /> THEY BELIEVE THE GRANTING Of SUCH A VARIANCE WOULD SET A PRECEDENT WHICH SHOULD NOT BE
<br /> DONE IN THIS CASE, AND ALSO RAISED THE QUESTION CONCERNJNG THE RESALE Of THE PROPERTY
<br /> PRIOR TO THE WIDENING Of THE STREET If SUCH VARIANCE WERE TO BE GRANTED. BASED ON
<br /> THIS. IT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD Of APPEALS THE, REQUEST fOR VARIANCE BE DENIED.
<br /> I
<br /> II e'
<br /> \ q
<br /> ,I
<br /> :1
<br /> ~II
<br /> :\
<br />
|