|
<br /> 18f''''l~
<br /> '. {J
<br /> e
<br /> 9/.28/59
<br /> --. -. -
<br /> "---- - ---------- --_.---~----=_:- -. : - -- ~ ---- -- - - - -- . ---- - - - - - .- - -- - -- - ---- - -
<br /> -----------------------.::...;:.-~-_-.:::..._-~-~- ~---~-=-- ~~~~------_._---....::....----=-~~--_-:.:-~-----=-----_:..---~~- --------
<br /> ---_._-~-~-------~------- ---~
<br /> It - - - --
<br /> I i
<br /> ~
<br /> ~ THE COMMITTEE DISCUSSED THE MATTER AND MADE INQUIRY OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AS 7
<br /> ~I
<br /> (I TO WHETHER IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR AN INSTRUMENT TO BE DRAfTED THAT WOULD
<br /> (j REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF THE STRUCTURE BY ANY PROPERTY OWNER IN THE EVENT THE I
<br /> ~. i PROPERTY HAD TO BE USED fOR STREET WIDENING. THE CITY ATTORNEY INDICATED
<br /> ;\ THAT SUCH AN INSTRUMENT COULD BE DRAFTED. ArTER SOME DISCUSSION AND BECAUSE Ii
<br /> ONLY A LIMITED NUMBER OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAD SEEN THE AREA, IT WAS II
<br /> ;1 SUGGESTED THIS BE HELD UNTIL THE COUNCIL MEETING Of SEPTEMBER 28, 1959. No II
<br /> OC) FORMAL ACTION WAS TAKEN.
<br /> (;" r:
<br /> \S "
<br /> ~.t II
<br /> ~:t:~ ,! il
<br /> (" " ii IT WAS MOVED BY MR. WILSON SECONDED BY MR. SHEARER THAT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD OF
<br /> ,.--.,;' II
<br /> l"",- ~I ApPEALS TO DENY THE REQUEST BE UPHELD. MOT ION D,EFEATED. il
<br /> kw-';,...",
<br /> ,......r"'.
<br /> ,..-"~ I 11
<br /> :1 IT WAS MOVED BY MR. MCGAffEY SECONDED BY MR. CHATT THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE-BE APPROVED
<br /> I
<br /> 'I SUBJECT TO THE DRAFTING OF AN INSTRUMENT WITH RESTRICTIONS TO REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF THE
<br /> ,I
<br /> "I NEW STRUCTURE PROJECTING INTO THE SETBACK AREA AT ANY fUTURE TIME 13TH AVENUE IS WIDENED,
<br /> e 'I WITH SUCH REMOVAL TO BE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. MOTION CARRIED.
<br /> "
<br /> "
<br /> II IT WAS MOVED BY MR. MOYER SECONDED BY MR. SHEARER THAT THE CITY ADMINISTRATION WRITE TO
<br /> :t
<br /> " ALL KNOWN REAL ESTATE AGENCIES, ARCHITECTS, DESIGNERS, REGARDING CONFORMANCE WITH EXIST-
<br /> il
<br /> "~I ING REGULATIONS REGARDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. MOTION CARRIED.
<br /> I,
<br /> 'I
<br /> II
<br /> , 1 :1 B. REQUEST BY GLENN A.PLYMATE, fOR VARIANCE fROM 52' SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO I
<br /> I ALLOW CONSTRUCTION Of A DUPLEX AT 3630 WILLAMETTE STREET - A PLOT PLAN Of
<br /> I
<br /> I Ii THE PROPOSED BUILDING WAS SHOWN TO THE COMMITTEE WHICH PLAN SHOWED INADE-
<br /> I QUATE REAR YARD SETBACK UNDER THE DEfiNITION Of THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE I
<br /> 'I BOARD Of ApPEALS HAD RECOMMENDED DENIAL Of THE REQUEST WITH THE SUGGESTION I
<br /> 'I THAT THE DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURE BE CHANGED TO COMPLY WITH ZONING AND BUILD- i,
<br /> 'I II
<br /> I ING CODE REQUIREMENTS. AfTER SOME DISCUSSION THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED II
<br /> il II
<br /> "I THAT THE APPLICATION fOR VARIANCE BE DENIED, AND THAT IT BE SUGGESTED THAT
<br /> ~I Ii
<br /> 'I MR. PLYMATE PROPOSE AN ALTERNATE PLAN fOR THE USE OF THE PROPERTY BUT WITH-
<br /> "
<br /> " d
<br /> ,I OUT SUCH AN EXTENSIVE ENCROACHMENT UPON THE NORMAL REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS. II
<br /> ;1
<br /> >I MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
<br /> Ii
<br /> :1 II
<br /> ~ i IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR. MOLHOLM THAT ITEM 4B Of THE COMMITTEE REPORT
<br /> BE APPROVED. MOT I ON CARRI ED.
<br /> ): I
<br /> ,
<br /> 2 i 5. DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED CONTRACT WI~H LEI GH fiSHER & ASSOCIATES - THE I
<br /> :\ CITY ATTORNEY INDICATED HE HAD GONE OVER A PROPOSED CONTRACT WITH LEIGH fiSHER II
<br /> d
<br /> I & ASSOCIATES WHICH CONTRACT IS TO RUN fOR A PERIOD Of ONE YEAR AT A RETAINER ,I
<br /> ! Ii
<br /> :i FEE OF $150.00 PER MONTH WITH WORK TO BE DONE ON-A fEE BASIS WITH THE TOTAL I,
<br /> I POTENTIAL COST UNDER THE CONTRACT NOT TO EXCEED $5000.00. IN THErOISCUSSION 'I
<br /> ,i IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT A PRIOR CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND LEIGH FISHER & [I
<br /> "1 ASSOCIATES HAD NOT PROVEN OUT AND THAT THE- RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE II
<br /> ,
<br /> :1 REPORT PRESENTED SOME FIVE YEARS AGO'HAD BEEN ERRONEOUS, AND IT WAS SUG- II
<br /> ;1 GESTED THAT MEMBERS Of THE CITY'S STAfF OR OTHER LOCAL PEOPLE MIGHT DO AN I:
<br /> i:
<br /> , EQUIVALENT JOB. IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH
<br /> "
<br /> I li LEIGH fiSHER & ASSOC'IATES AND THAT THE PROPER CITY OfFICIALS BE AUTHORIZED
<br /> ,) TO EXECUTE THE CONTRAC:r. MOTION CARRIED, MR. WILSON VOTING NAY.'
<br /> ~ I
<br /> ITEM 5 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT "
<br /> " IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR. MOLHOLM THAT II
<br /> I
<br /> t' BE APPROVED. ROLLCALL VOTE.- 'ALL COUNCILMEN PRESENT VOTING AYE EXCEPT MR. WILSON VOTING II
<br /> I
<br /> .1 NAY, MOTION CARRIED. 'j
<br /> II
<br /> 'I II
<br /> 3 ,; 6. 60MMUNICATION FROM R. J. NESS CONCERNING USE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1572
<br /> -I
<br /> ., I
<br /> if COL'UMB I A STREET IN THE OWNERSHIP OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON - IN A COMMUNI- I
<br /> e CATION MR. NESS I NO I CAT,ED THAT IT -HAS COME TO ,HIS ATTENTION THE UNIVERSITY
<br /> PROPOSES TO USE PROPERTY AT 1572.COL UMB I,A STREET FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN I
<br /> RES I,DENT I'AL.' HE FURTHER STATED THAT HIS PROPERTY ADJOINS THE UNIVERSITY Ii
<br /> 'I
<br /> PROPERTY AND ANY USE OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL WOULD TEND TO LOWER THE VALUE II
<br /> OF HIS PROeERTY AND OTHER PROPERTIES SIMILARLY SITUATED. HE REQUESTED THAT
<br /> UNDER THE ZON I,NG ORD INANCES INV&STIGATION aE MADE AND THAT THE UNIVERSITY Ii
<br /> BE ADVISED THAT USE Of THIS PROPERTY AT THIS LOCATION FOR PURPOSES OTHER Ii
<br /> 'I THAN RESIDENTIAL IS CONTRARY TO LAW. II
<br /> II II
<br /> "
<br /> " IN DISCUSSING THE MATTER WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, HE EXPLAINED HE DID NOT BE-
<br /> il
<br /> I LIEVE THE STATE IS SUBJECT TO ZONING ORDINANCES OF THE CITY Of EUGENE SINCE
<br /> 1
<br /> .1 THE CITY IS A CREATURE OF THE STATE. UNDER THIS THESIS THE UNIVERSITY Of II
<br /> il II
<br /> ,i OREGON CAN USE THE PROPERTY AS IT SEES FIT PROVIDING IT DOES NOT COMMIT A
<br /> 'I _I T WAS SUGGESTED THE CITY ATTORNEY WR ITE A LETTER TO MR. NESS II
<br /> q NUISANCE.
<br /> :1 EXPLA1NING TH~S THESIS, ~ND I T WAS RECOMMENDED THE COMMUN I CAT I,ON BE: RECE I VED Ij
<br /> '\ I,
<br /> I [I AND PLACED ON FILE., MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. :1
<br /> ..\ 7. CONSIDERATION Of PROPOSED ORDINANCES RELATED TO THE POLICING OF ,ORIVEINS - Ii
<br /> 4 'i Ii
<br /> i, THE CITY ATTORNEY EXPLAINED HE AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD BEEN CONSIDER-
<br /> 'I
<br /> ,t ING ORDINANCE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE POLICING OF DRIVE INS AND OTHER
<br /> :l
<br /> " COMPARABLE AREAS WHERE PEOPLE CONGREGATE AND WHERE A LARGE NUMBER OF MOTOR
<br /> ~ j 1
<br /> :1 VEHICLES ARE I NVOL VE,O. -REPRESENTATIVES OF-THE DRIVEIN RESTAURANTS APPEARED
<br /> '\ BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AND INDICATED -THEY ,WISH' ADDED CONTROLS FROM THE STAND-
<br /> '/ \
<br /> i POINT OF' POLICING:THEIR OWN PREMISES AS WELL AS AIDING THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM~
<br /> II
<br /> e ;i II
<br /> ~I II
<br /> ., II
<br /> ;'i
<br /> ,',
<br /> " li
<br /> 1-: !I......
<br />
|