|
<br /> 461"
<br />e
<br />-- - - 6/13/60 -
<br />-. - - - -- --- -- -- - - -- -_.- - - --- ----- - - -- - -
<br /> - -- - - - - - - -- --- -- ---
<br />. --- --- it - - - - -- -
<br />I of which would require the purchase of the Campbell property just east of the Amazon between 17th il
<br /> ~I and 18th, and one of which proposed that the freeway start a curve at 19th Avenue with such II
<br /> i1 curve to project through the block at 18th and 19th at Pearl and High Street, proceeding north- II
<br /> :1 ward to require the acquisition of the southeast portion of the block between 17th and 18th and I,
<br /> 'I Pearl and High Street, and the northwesterly three-quarters 'of the block between High and Mill II
<br /> i ,
<br /> " Street and 17th and 18th, as well as the major half-block areas between High and Mill and 16th II
<br /> I Ii
<br /> I and 17th on the easterly side and on the westerly side of 16th and 17th between Mill and Ferry,
<br /> with such roadway then to project northerly immediately adjacent to the east side of Mill Street. :1
<br /> 1 This plan was described as Plan No.8 and was estimated to cost $1,355.16 for property acquisitiou.
<br /> 'I
<br />CO :1
<br /> ,I If
<br />C'-~ i The committee recommended the acceptance of Plan No. 8 and further recommended that an ordinance II
<br /> 'I
<br />~ be initiated to deny building permits in the area of the projected freeway location as shown on !:
<br />l) Ii
<br />rv~ .' Plan No. 8 and outlined in red. MOtion carried unanimously. :1
<br />- 'I
<br />ro , I,
<br /> ,t "
<br /> A number of interested citizens appeared before the Council to express their views with reg~rd to I'
<br /> the proposed alignment the proposed Spencer Butte Expressway between 18th and 19th Avenu~s:. II
<br /> I Questions were raised by individuals as to how the acquistion of property for the proposed '(
<br /> I II
<br />e ,; Expressway might occur. In this regard, it was stated that these properties would be acquired !I
<br /> over a 10 year period, since the voters recently approved a $300,000 per year, lO year seriel II
<br /> levy for this purpose. Questions were also asked regarding the policy for building permit Ii
<br /> II
<br /> , issuance during the 10 year period and it was pointed out that any major construction in the area 'I
<br /> ,I would not be looked upon favorably, since the public would have to acquire the new constructions II
<br /> II
<br /> before the freeway could be built. Inquiry was then made as to what effect this would have on the )1
<br /> Plumbing, Electrical, Building and Housing Codes, and whether the City would place property owners ,I
<br /> in the area in a situation where they would not be allowed to bring their properties up to City II
<br />I , standards. In this regard, the Mayor explained, the Council wauld have to take a reasonable
<br /> , attitude. Ii
<br /> i /----~
<br /> , [I
<br /> Mr. Ralph Cobb appeared on behalf of a dental clinic,organization composed of five dentists. He II
<br /> II
<br /> " 1\
<br /> 1\ indicated this organization was ready to start construction on a $65,000 addition to their clinic.
<br /> They were not opposed to the freeway but would want to know what the Council*s plans were. :1
<br /> I.
<br /> 'I
<br /> I! Some questions were raised which referred to the belief in the minds of owners of property that II
<br /> I,
<br /> " the designation of the Expressway was an attempt to hold down land values, which would be an ;1
<br /> I' injustice to property owners in the area, as to whether the Expressway was really needed and II
<br /> , I.
<br /> whether acquisition might not be made at some later time. To these questions it was pointed out !i
<br /> that no matter where the road is located, it will affect someone, that the potential population 'I
<br /> !,
<br /> of the City presumes to generate 40,000 automobiles per day over this expressway, and that I'
<br /> "
<br /> " :1
<br /> economically the City cannot wait to start acquisition of the property. Questions were also "
<br /> ,I
<br /> : raised as to the legality on a constitutional basis of designating an area and prohibiting "
<br /> , building without the actual acquisition of the property. !!
<br /> " II
<br /> , :i
<br /> II It was moved by Mr. Shearer and seconded by Mr. MOyer that Item 11 of the Committee report I:
<br /> be approved. Motion carried. "
<br /> , :1
<br /> " II
<br /> ;\
<br /> I I 12. Consideration of proposed ordinance prohibiting parking by passenger and other vehicles except 'I
<br /> ,
<br /> ,I :1
<br /> trunk and pickup trucks in truck loading zones. A proposed ordinance prohibiting the parking of II
<br /> ,I
<br /> any vehicle except a truck, a commercial vehicle or a pickup truck where parking for trucks only I'
<br /> I, d
<br /> " is allowed was presented. The Committee recommended the enactment of the ordinance. Ii
<br /> II
<br />I I,
<br /> It was moved by Mr. Shearer seconded by Mr. Chatt that Item 12 of the Committee Report be Ii
<br /> I
<br /> approved. Motion carried. "
<br /> I
<br /> 'I
<br /> '. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 'I
<br /> I,
<br /> ,
<br /> Ii
<br /> 2 A permanent report of the Planning Commission Meeting held June 7, 1960, - Re: McDonald Candy ii
<br /> " Company was submitted and read as follows: II
<br />e :I I,
<br /> "
<br /> "At the regular meeting of the Eugene City Planning Commission June 7, 1960, the Planning !I
<br /> 11
<br /> Commission made the following recommendation to the Council: Ii
<br /> McDonald Candy Company - Request for easement vacation in the Eugene Industrial Development 'I
<br /> ;, "
<br /> II
<br /> ,; Corporation il
<br /> I
<br /> I The Planning Commission recommends that requested vacation of 18 feet of railroad utility I.
<br /> I" :f
<br /> easement be denied, since, from information now at hand, there is no need to consider vacation Ii
<br /> of any portion of this easement to accommodate the building or the plans that bave been filed
<br /> with the Building Department, and that to grant a vacation of the easement would constitute a Ii
<br /> l[
<br /> gross inequity on the land owner to the south."
<br /> II
<br /> It was moved by Mr. Shearer and seconded by Mr. Chatt that the Report of the Planning Commission II
<br /> I
<br /> be adopted. "
<br /> il
<br /> I II
<br /> :i A Planning Commission report concerning May 16, 1960 recommendation on Eugene Chemical Works, II
<br /> 3 I'
<br /> II
<br />I 'I
<br /> was submitted and read as follows: I,
<br /> II
<br /> 'I I.
<br /> I:
<br /> "On May 16, 1960, your City Planning Commission recommended that the City initiate abate- "
<br /> tI
<br /> :i 'I
<br /> ment proceedings aga~nst the Eugene Chemical Works, located at 220 Patterson Road, Eugene, I,
<br /> " Oregon, for continued occupancy of a 34 ft. x 40 ft. two-story reinforced concrete structure :1
<br /> ,1
<br /> " illegally constructed in 1955. Following hearings, the Lane County Planning Commission on \1
<br /> .1 11
<br /> " April 26, 1955, granted Tony Tosta of the Eugene Chemical Works the right to complete and occupy
<br /> .1 ;1
<br /> , the structure for a 5-year period. This temporary permit has now expired, and it is the opinion ,
<br /> "
<br />- I of your Planning Commission that the structure should be razed. 'i
<br /> " I,
<br /> I Attached hereto are copies of documents from the Lane County Planning Commission file
<br /> " <,
<br /> ~; including Mr. Tosta' s request for a variance and the- minutes of the Lane County Planning Commission.'~
<br /> i: .....
<br /> "
<br />
|