|
<br />~460
<br /> e
<br /> 6/13/60 - ,
<br /> --------_.~--~-~ f
<br />I 9. Request for inegration of paid firemen now employed by Willakenzie Fire Department. II
<br /> A letter from the Fire Chief was read in which it was indicated that under Oregon Law the I
<br /> Council may induct Firemen employed by" a fire district into its civil service system, with d
<br /> I II
<br /> or without examination, in the discretion of the Common Council. The Fire Chief re- ,I
<br /> I'
<br /> I commended that the present four fully paid firemen of the Willakenzie Fire Protection I:
<br /> ,
<br /> , I
<br /> I ., ' Dist'ric.tbe inducted into the Eugene Fire Department Civil Seryice without examination d
<br /> !I ,
<br /> and be' assigned' to ~uty in positions as determined by the Fire Chief. This recommendation "
<br /> I was supported by the City Manager and the Committee recommended the recommendations to the
<br /> i City Manager and to the Fire Chief be approved and theWillakenzie Firemen be'integrated
<br /> , into'the Civil Service system for the Eugene Fire Department. MOtion carried unanimously.
<br /> I
<br /> I
<br /> I
<br /> ~ , It was moved by Mr. Shearer and seconded by Mr. Chatt that Item 9 of the Committee
<br /> ,
<br /> , Report be approved. Motion carried.
<br /> I
<br /> \
<br />2 I 10. Consideration of Planning Commission Report concerning Eugene Chemical Works located at
<br /> I
<br /> , 220 Patterson Road. A report'reconnilending abatemEmt proceedings against the Eugene
<br /> 'I Chemical Works located at 220 Patterson ~oad for continued"occupancy of a 34' x 40' two-
<br /> ![ story reinforced concrete structure, illegally constructed in 1955, was presented to the 'I
<br /> !I
<br /> COminittee. The report further stated that hearings had been held by the Lane County I, e
<br /> "
<br /> i Planning Commission on ~ril 26, 1955, granting the right for the Eugene Chemical Works to Ii
<br /> , complete and'occupy the structure for a 5 year period and such temporary permit has'now
<br /> I II
<br /> "
<br /> j expired and it is the opinion of the Planning Commission'that the structure .should be razed. :1
<br /> !I
<br /> Ii "
<br /> A copy of a petition signed by Tony Tosta, oWner of the Eugene Chemical Works, which had ,:
<br /> 'I
<br /> been presented to the Lane County Planning Commission"on"March'lO, 1955, was presented as i,
<br /> II I,
<br /> I
<br /> II were minutes of the April 26,'1955 Lane County Planning Commission,on petition favoring the "
<br /> : I
<br /> improvement of-the building signed by nine area residents, a copy of petition signed by nine ,
<br /> Ii
<br /> veterinarians approving of the improved building and a copy of the minutes of the May 16, "
<br /> I II
<br /> !, 1960 Planning COmmission meeting. Some discussion was had on this in which it was stated Ii
<br /> Ii
<br /> it was now considered, as far as the. Planning Commission was concerned~ that it was the "
<br /> I 'I
<br /> obligation of the City to enforce the temporary permit which had been granted in 1955. In :!
<br /> ! ;~
<br /> the discussion, it was pointed out that this would abate only one piece of the property, jl
<br /> that Mr. Tosca did not know the building permit requirements at the time he started the II
<br /> ,
<br /> ,:
<br /> construction, that his operation was the only one of its type in the Willamette Valley, Ii
<br /> I "
<br /> that the concrete structure increased the efficiency, of his business and made it more 'I
<br /> I Ii
<br /> , sanitary and more usable, that it was not known what effect the'annexation'to the'City had ii
<br /> ~ I
<br /> I on the existence of the building, that the business would not be made inoperative by'the 'I
<br /> I,
<br /> failure to use this building bot more of the materials would have to be tra~sported to the II
<br /> I' dump. It was also indicated the business'has been operated at-this location since 1903
<br /> Ii Ii
<br /> II and was in operation when, the County Zoning Ordinance was passed and was also in operation "
<br /> il ,when the area was annexed to the City of Eugene. ,I
<br /> Ii :1
<br /> !I Ii
<br /> II Howard Buford, the Planning Consultant, indicated that zoning classifications are established 11
<br /> for particular uses, that' some types of the operation are not consistantf<and are nonconforming ,:1
<br /> and tbat had the'~uilding not been constructed in 1955, in time it would have deteriorated i!
<br /> "
<br /> I: and the use would have been stopped. He also pointed out:ttiat had abuilding permit been I
<br /> Ii ' II
<br /> requested in 1955, 'it would have been denied. The-Lane County Planning Commission gave a II
<br /> I five year extenSion to allow for an amortization of the' capital ,invested in the new building, :1
<br /> 1 and the owner was urged to relocate in a proper zone at that time. , 'I
<br /> ;:
<br /> I II
<br /> ! I
<br /> i It was further stated by Mr. Buford that if, we do not adhere to the Zoning Code, any non- !I
<br /> I conforming use could be expected to increase in size or be reconstructed of more permanent Ii
<br /> "
<br /> 1/ I'
<br /> Iilaterials, and further that the courts anticipate a nonconformance use will disappear in 'I
<br /> "
<br /> time. Mrs~ Niven of the Eugene Planning Commission questioned the advisability of rewarding Ii
<br /> ! businessmen who fail to follow "the law. It was then recommended that this matter be tabled. II
<br /> i I-
<br /> Motion carried, :with-Mrs. Lauris voting nay. l:
<br /> i il
<br /> I'
<br /> I It was moved byMr; Shearer seconded by Mr. Chatt that Item 10 of _the Committee Report i: e
<br /> be approved. Motion carried. I'
<br /> , ,I
<br /> ! Ii
<br /> Mr. Ed Allen, attorney for Mr. Tosta, the owner of the Eugene Chemical Works, appeared "
<br /> , "
<br /> , :1
<br /> i , before the Council, and indicated that Mr. Tosta wished to have an opportunity to go over
<br /> I'
<br /> , , ~
<br /> , this matter thoroughly with the Council to explain the possible effects of the abatement
<br /> t I:
<br /> i
<br /> I procedure. In the discussion between Mr. Allen and the Council ,members, it was indicated II
<br /> Ii that Mr. 'Tosta has no plans at preserit to move the operation, that nis major deterrent to Ii
<br /> <I
<br /> II moving is one of financing, that he would have to sell the existing plant to move,and that I'
<br /> I
<br /> the existing plaut has an investment of $400,000"- $500,00. It 'was likewise indicated that I
<br /> "
<br /> [1 "
<br /> ignorance of the law is no excuse, that Mr. Tosta has had the past five years to relocate, 'I
<br /> II that the Small Business Administration might 'aid - him in financing; and that - the Council. , Ii
<br /> ~ cannot reward Mr'. Tosta for failure to abide by the law. Also, it was further stated that I,
<br /> 'i
<br /> P Mr~ Tostanever agreed to move his operation. "
<br /> , ~!
<br /> i I
<br /> II
<br />3 I n. Discussion concerning the alignment of the Spencer Butte Expressway from 8th Avenue to 19th !'
<br /> I Ii
<br /> Avenue. It was explained that ,a Mr,. Johnson had started construction of a building at ;: I
<br /> i the southwest 'cotner of 17th and 'High St'reets and at the request of the ;Administration he ~ \
<br /> "
<br /> il had ceased construction until the alfgnment of the Spencer Butte Expressway could be ,
<br /> .'
<br /> "
<br /> :! determined since his building appeared to be directly in line with one of the proposed ,I
<br /> il
<br /> :1 routes. He further explained that another parcel located immediately east of the amazon "
<br /> il "
<br /> II
<br /> and owned by Paul W. Campbell was likewise contemplated for improvement and that Mr. I'
<br /> :i 'i
<br /> Campbell had temporarily held back his improvement pending a determination of the proposed .,
<br /> "
<br /> ~ ! route of the expressway. Three plans were presented for consideration, two of which would ~ I
<br /> , I'
<br /> require the purchase of the Johnson property at the southwest corner of 17th and High, one~ ~ !
<br /> I, -
<br /> I:
<br /> I:
<br /> I ,
<br /> ,
<br /> ,
<br />~
<br />
|