Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> 20'Q~ <br /> kJ 0 oJ <br />e <br /> 11/23/59 <br />-- .. u . . ]1 - ~ -- c . <br /> II <br />"I ~ <br /> 'I <br /> I, <br /> ~ IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO ADD FUNDS'TO THE PARKS & <br /> '., <br /> ~ i RECREATION BUDGET IN THE SUM OF $2,000 TO ALLOW THE PURCHASE OF SUCH PROPERTY <br /> , <br /> .'j WHICH WOULD .BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COUNCIL <br /> .' "- IN A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET. <br /> :i q <br /> -I II <br /> 'I THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED ACCEPTANCE OF THE 5-YEAR CONTRACT BASIS FOR THE PUR- !I <br /> ,. <br /> I <br /> ;'1 CHASE OF MR. MCKY'S PROPERTY AT $27,000 PER YEAR, TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE OF II <br /> '.1 <br />0C1 I $135,000. MOTION CARRIED. :1 <br />N I <br />...... ~! IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MRS. lAURIS THAT ITEM 4 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE II <br />'.J .1 <br />U: i APPROVED. ROLLCALL VOTE. ALL COUNCILMEN PRESENT VOTING AYE, MOTION CARRIED. /< <br /> I' <br />!"V" " I <br />-~. ., <br />c.c I ,: 5. DISCUSSION OF DOG ORDINANCE - IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL- <br /> ii MAN MCGAFFEY THE QUESTION OF THE DoG ORDINANCE HAD BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THE <br /> ,i COMMITTEE. COUNCILMAN MCGAFFEY i <br /> INDICATED HE HAD HAD A NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS II <br /> ,i REGARDING DOGS AND THAT HE WONDERED WHY THE ENFORCEMENT HAD NOT BEEN BETTER II <br /> II <br />e 'I AND WISHED TO DISCUSS THIS WITH THE HUMANE SOCIETY SO THAT HE WOULD KNOW BETTER II <br /> '" WHAT THE HUMANE SOCIETY'S PROBLEMS ARE. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE HUMANE SOCIETY <br /> i II <br /> 'I INDICATED THAT THE ORDINANCE NOW IN FORCE DOES NOT PROVIDE THE METHOD FOR CON- <br /> I TROL OF DOGS THAT CANNOT BE CAUGHT. VARIOUS PROBLEMS FACED BY THE HUMANE SOCIETY I' <br /> :i WERE DISCUSSED IN GENERAL BY THE COMMITTEE AND IN THIS DISCUSSION IT WAS JillIDlCATED 'I <br /> " <br /> " THAT THE HUMANE SOCIETY IS NOW IN BETTER SHAPE TO PROVIDE SERVICE SINCE THEY CUR- :1 <br /> :I <br /> " RENTLY OPERATE TWO TRUCKS AND HAVE RECENTLY ADDED A MAN TO THE STAFF. THE PRINCI- <br />I II PAL COMPLAINT OF THE HUMANE SOCIETY WITH REFERENCE TO THE PRESENT ORDINANCE IS il <br /> I THAT THERE IS NO PENALTY FOR TURNING A DOG LOOSE EVEN IF EVIDENCE CAN BE SHOWN <br /> d THAT THE DOG IS LOOSE, AND THE ONLY METHOD OF ENFORCEMENT IS THE ACTUAL AND PHYSI- 'I <br /> " II <br /> I CAL PICKING UP OF THE DOG. <br /> I I <br /> I FOLLOWING THE DISCUSSION IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT A NEW OR AMENDED ORDINANCE BE I <br /> ,! , <br /> DRAWN TO TIGHTEN THE RESTRICTIONS REGARDING DOGS, AND THE COMMITTEE RECOM- II <br /> MENDED THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE HUMANE SOCIETY JOINTLY WORK TOWARD THE <br /> DEVELOPMENT OF;AN ORDINANCE OR AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING ORDINANCE TO BETTER !I <br /> MEET THE PROBLEM OF DOG CONTROL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. <br /> I' <br /> 6. AGENDA FOR COMMITTEE MEETING TO BE HELD MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1959 - SOME DIS- II <br /> I' <br /> CUSS ION WAS GIVEN TO THE ITEMS WHICH SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR THE " <br /> , <br /> I .COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING TO BE HELD MONDAY, NOVEMBER ~6, 1959. AMONG THE :! <br /> 11 <br /> ITEMS SET FORTH WERE THE DISCUSSION OF SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY HALL, THE " <br /> I' <br /> MATTER OF SELECTION OF AN ARCHITECT, THE DISCUSSION OF A BOND PACKAGE FOR Ii <br /> II <br /> CITY NEEDS, AND THE STATE OF OREGON BUILDING AREA REQUIREMENTS. Ii <br /> '. <br /> IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MRS. lAURIS THAT ITEMS 5 AND 6 OF THE COMMITTEE RE- i' <br /> ,! <br /> I' <br /> ii PORT BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. !I <br /> (: <br /> I :1 <br /> 'I 7. DISCUSSION ONSPENCER BUTTE EXPRESSWAY INTERCHANGE -MAYOR CONE INDICATED THAT <br /> 3 " <br /> Ii FOR THE PAST ONE AND A HALF YEARS THE IDEA OF A SPENCER BUTTE EXPRESSWAY HAS II <br /> " <br /> ,I BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL AND OTHER AGENCIES. <br /> :1 THIS EXPRESSWAY I, <br /> WOULD EXTEND FROM APPROXIMATELY BROADWAY AND MILL STREET SOUTHERLY ACROSS THE II <br />I 'I I, <br /> 'I CITY TO EVENTUALLY TIE INTO BLOOMBERG ROAD AND TO EXTEND A MAJOR ARTERIAL ii <br /> il 'I <br /> " INTO THE SOUTH WllLAMETTE AREA. <br /> i 1 <br /> I, <br /> 'f THe MAYOR THEN S~ATED THAT HE HAD RECENTLY LEARNED THAT A SUPER MOTEL IS NOW <br /> I <br /> :I CONTEMPL'ATED AT MILL STREET AND BROADWAY WH I CH WOULD EFFECT I VEL Y BLOCK THE I, <br /> :1 <br /> :1 NORTH END OF- SUCH A PROPOSED EXPRESSWA Y . HE STATED THAT THIS PROPERTY' HAS 11 <br /> BEEN OPTIONED FOR ~HE MOTEL AND THAT SINCE ~EARNING OF THEPOTENTIAL SALE OF II <br />e THE PROPERTY, HE HAD DISCUSSED WITH THE OWNER THE POSSIBILITY OF THE CITY'S I <br /> I <br /> ACQUIRING SUCH PROPERTY. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT APPARENTLY THE MOTEL IS I <br /> IN GOOD FAITH DESIROUS OF 'LOCATING AND HAVE APPLIED FOR A BUlDlNG PERMIT. I <br /> I <br /> ; <br /> THE PLANNING CONSULTANT INDICATED THAT IF THE MOTEL IS BUILT AT THE PROPOSED I, <br /> LOCATION IT WOULD EFFECTIVELY BLOCK THE PROPOSED EXPRESSWAY AND WOULD REQUIRE II <br /> THAT A NUMBER OF AWKWARD TURNING MOVEMENTS BE MADE BY TRAFFIC AND WOULD II <br /> fURTHER MEAN THAT TRAFFIC WOULD HAVE TO CONTINUE TO USE THE DOWNTOWN AREA <br /> FOR ARTERIAL MOVEMENT. THE PLANNING CONSULTANT FURTHER INDICATED THAT THE II <br /> :1 <br /> EXPRESSWAY IDEA IS NOW BECOMING THE OPTIMUM DESIGN SINCE CITIES THROUGHOUT I <br /> THE NATION ARE GETTING AWAY FROM THE OLD IDEA OF LOCAL STREET USE FOR I <br /> ARTERIAL PURPOSES. I <br /> II <br /> THE MAYOR SUGGESTED THE CITY SHOULD PLAN TO EXTEND THE EXPRESSWAY OVER A I! <br /> I PERIOD OF TIME AND THAT HE BELIEVES IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO PURCHASE THE <br /> , II <br /> ' !I PROPERTY OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OR MORE. FOLLOWING SOME DISCUSSION <br />I " IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY NEGOTIATE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY I <br /> I LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BROADWAY AT MILL STREET ON A 3-YEAR OR LONGER I <br /> ;'[ BASIS AT A PRICE COMPARABLE TO THE CURRENT OPTION PRICE. MOTION CARRIED. <br /> ii UNAN IMOUSL Y." I <br /> , <br /> Ii IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR. WILSON THAT ITEM 7 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT, <br /> iI <br /> :i TOGETHER WITH ITEM 6 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT Of NOVEMBER 16, 1959 AND ITEM 4 OF THE I <br /> " COMMITTEE REPORT OF NOVEMBER 20, 1959, BE REfERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR <br /> i: <br />e ~, ! FURTHER STUDY. MOTION CARRIED. <br /> I, I <br /> f,1 <br /> I I <br /> 'I <br /> I <br /> j <br /> '~ <br /> " <br /> , <br />