|
<br /> "'llIIIIl
<br /> 45
<br /> e
<br /> 9/26/60
<br /> :1
<br /> FIRM HAS A CLIENT WHO IS INTERESTED IN ACQUIRING THE CITY HALL PROPERTY, AND WISHED A MEANS OF PRE-
<br /> I SENTING AN,OFFER. THE LETTER FURTHER STATES THAT THEY AGREE TO PLACE 110,000 IN ESCROW AS EARNEST
<br /> MONEY TO PURCHASE ON A CASH BASIS, WITH THE FINAL CONSUMMATION OF THE SALE TO BE CONDITIONED UPON
<br /> THE VOTER'S APPROVAL OF THE BOND ISSUE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW CITY HALL. IT FURTHER OFFERS THE
<br /> :'
<br /> CITY THE USE OF THE PROPERTY AT NO CHARGE UNTIL IT CAN GIVE POSSESSION WITHIN A FOUR YEAR PERIOD, AND
<br /> REQUESTS THAT, IF POSSIBLE, ACTION BE TAKEN ON USCH AN OFFER WITHIN A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS.
<br /> IN THE DISCUSSION WHICH FOLLOWED THE OFFER, IT WAS ,INDICATED THAT TO FIND A BUYER FOR A PARCEL
<br /> OF PROPERTY THE SIZE OF THE CITY HALL PROPERTY COULD BE DIFFICULT, THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE NOTHING
<br /> TO LOSE BY OFFERING IT FOR SALE NOW, AND THAT THE KNOWEEDGE OF THE PU~CHASE PRICE FOR THE BUILDING
<br /> WOULD AID IN PRESENTING A CITY HALL FINANCING PLAN TO THE VOTERS, AS A SALE PRICE WOULD BE KNON.
<br /> FOLLOWING THE DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER, IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT AN AP~RAISAL OF THE CITY HALL
<br /> PROEERTY BE MADE, THAT B IDS BE CALLED FOR THE SALE OF SUCH PROPE,RTY, SUBJECT TO THE PASSAGE OF A
<br /> BOND ISSUE FOR THE CITY HALL, WITH SUCH BIDS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL AT THEIR MEETING OF
<br /> NOVEMBER 14, 1960. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ,
<br /> "
<br /> IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER AND SECONDED BY MRS. LAURIS THAT ITEM 3 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE
<br /> APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED.
<br /> e I 4. CONSIDERATION OF PETITION PROTESTING CONSTR UCTION OF SIDEWALKS ON THE WEST SIDE OF DONALD
<br /> STREET BETWEEN 35TH AVENUE AND 37TH AVENUE - REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMMITTEE DROVE TO AND OBSERVED
<br /> THE SITE OF THE PROPOSED DONALD STREET SIDEWALKS, BUT IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS ITEM BE HELB UP,
<br /> PENDING AN OPINION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO ASSESS BOTHHSIDES OF THE
<br /> STREET FOR A SIDEWALK ON ONE S I DE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
<br /> IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER AND SECONDED By,MRS. LAURIS THAT I TEM 4 OF THE 'COMMITTEE REPORT BE "
<br /> I "
<br /> APPROVED. MOT 10 fN CARRIED.
<br /> 2 5. RECONSIDERATION OF PROTESTS FROM AREA RESIDENTS REGARDING THE GO-KART RACE TRACK ON BAILEY
<br /> HILL ROAD AND THE AMAZON - REPRESENTATIVES LIVING ADJACENT TO THE GO-KART RAC~ TRACK ON BAILEY HILL
<br /> AN~ THE AMAZON APPEARE~ BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, TO AGAI N PROTEST THE OPERATION OF THE GO-KART ~ACE
<br /> " TRACK. IN THE VARIOUS STATEMENTS WHICH WERE MADE, THESE RESIDENTS REQUESTED THAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE
<br /> ~ BE ENFORCED; THAT THE OPERATION OF THE TRACK coNSTITUTES A NUISANCE; THAT IT PRESENTS AN INTOLERABLE
<br /> c:.n SIT UA T ION; THAT THE NOISE ~S OBJECTIONABLE TO THE AREA RESIDENTS; THAT RES ID ENTS L I V I NG I N THE ARE A
<br /> C\l DO NOT HAVE PEACEFUL ENJOYMENT OF THEIR HOMES.
<br /> ~ A LETTER FROM MR. D. F. RIDENOUR WAS ALSO READ TO THE COMMITTEE, PROTESTING THE ACTION OF THE
<br /> CQ COUNCIL ALLOWING THE CONTINUATION OF THE GO-KART TRACK, QUESTIONING THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE
<br /> CO IF THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE IS NOT ENFORCED IN FULL, AND MAKING OTHER CH~ES AND ALLEGATIONS CONCERN-
<br /> ING THE COUNCIL'S ACTION ON THE GO~KART SITUATION. "
<br /> , ' -
<br /> A PETITION SIGNED BY 100 INDIVIDUALS, PROTESTING THE OP~RATION OF THE GO-KART TRACK, WAS ALSO
<br /> PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE. THE PETITIONERS ALLEGE IN THE PETITION THAT THE RESIDENTS OF AREAS IN
<br /> THE VICINITY OF THE AMAZON RACEWAY, PROTEST THE CONTINUANCE OF THE GO-KART OPERATION FOR THE REASON
<br /> THAT THE NOISE CREATED BY THE GO-KARTS MATERIALLY INTERFERES WITH T HE ENJOYMENT OF THE I R PROPERTY AND "
<br /> ,
<br /> SERIOUSLY DISTURBS THE COMFORT OF THEIR LIVING.
<br /> SOME DISCUSSION WAS HAD BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE SUBJECT, BUT NO FORMAL ACTION WAS TAKEN.
<br /> MAYOR CONE ANNOUNCED THAT THE PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS OF THE GO-KART TRACK WOULD BE ALLOWED
<br /> FIVE MINUTES EACH FOR ANY SUMMARIES WHICH THEY DESIRED TO MAKE. MR. PAUL PRICE SBOKE IN FAVOR OF
<br /> GO-KART RACING, INDICATING HIS GROUP WISHED TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE THE TRACK, AND IN THE PAST 34 DAY
<br /> I PERIOD HAD BEEN UNABLE TO WORK OUT ANY COMPROMISE WITH THE OPPONENTS OF GO-KART RACING.
<br /> MR. CLARK LANDAKER APPEARED BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND SUGGESTED THE GO-KART TRACK BE ENCLOSED IN A
<br /> BUILDING AND THAT THE OPERATION OF G-KARTS BE TIED IN WITH THE GENERAL RECREATION OF THE CITY. MR.
<br /> LANDAKER ALSO REQUESTED AND RECEIVED PERMISSION TO APPEAR BEFORE A COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
<br /> SESSION (NEXT THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, I 9 60) .
<br /> THE OPPONENTS WERE THEN HEARD, AND INCLUDED MRS. KE I TH SHE RWOOD, WHO STATED THAT THE SURROUNDING
<br /> HILLSI~ES AMPLIFIED THE NOISE, THAT THE AREA WAS DEVELOPING AND BEGINNING TO PROGRESS I NTO A fUTURE
<br /> BEAUTY SPOT OF EUGENE, AND THAT THE NOISE WAS DETRACTING FROM ITS DEVELOPMENT.
<br /> Me. DAWE STATED HE LIVED APPROXIMATELY THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILES DISTANT FROM THE TRACK AND THAT
<br /> e T HE NO I SE IS TERRlfJIC, THE NOISE GOES WITH KARTING, IS A NUISANCE,TO THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA.
<br /> MR. OTTO VONDERHEIT APPEARED ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OPPOSING GO-KARTS, STATED HIS PERUSAL OF
<br /> THE ZONING CODE PLACES THE AREA IN AN M-2 ZONE, THAT THE RACE TRACK CAN QUALIFY UNDER NONE O~ THE USES I~
<br /> ALLOWED IN THE M-2 ZONE, AN~ ESPECIALLY CANNO~ QUALIFY SINCE .THE NOISE IS OBJECTIONABLE TO THE AREA.
<br /> HE FURTHER DREW REFERENCE TO ,THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS IN THEC-3P ZONE, WHICH REQUIRES RECREATIONAL ;
<br /> FACILITIES TO BE WHOLLY INSIDE A BUILDING. "
<br /> MR. PRICE AGAIN SPOKE, AND STATED THE KARTERSWOULD BE AGREEABLE TO OPERATING ON A RESTRICTED
<br /> BASIS.
<br /> MR. SWANSON INQUIRED AS TO WHAT ACTION THE CITY ATTORNEY MIGHT RECOMMEND AND THE CITY MANAGER
<br /> REPORTED THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS RECOMMENDING NO ACTION, WITH THE IDEA THE MATTER COULD BE BROUG HT BEFORE "
<br /> "
<br /> THE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR A DECISION AND/OR DETERMINATION. "
<br /> ,
<br /> IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER AND SECONDED BY MRS. LAURIS THAT THE CITY PROCEED TO ENFORCE THE
<br /> ORDINANCE. MOTION CAR~ED WITH MR. WILSON ABSTAINING.
<br /> COUNCILWOMAN LAURIS THEN REMARKED THAT THIS WAS A SITUATION WHERE AN ORDI NANCE WAS ONE THE BOOKS,
<br /> AND IF PEOPLE DID NOT LIKE THE ORDINANCE, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR THEM TO GO THROUGH PROPER CHANNELS
<br /> I TO HAVE IT CHANGED, AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THAT PEOPLE HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT ffiID THE ENJOYMENT
<br /> OF THEIR HOMES, THAT THIS RIGHT IS PARAMOUNT AND SUPERCEDES THE RIGlTS OF THOSE WHO WISH TO U>E THE A~A "
<br /> FOR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES.
<br /> 6. COMMUNICATION FROM FRED BRAATZ AND HARRY RUBENSTEIN FOR AN EASEMENT ON CITY-0'WNED PROPERTY AT ;
<br /> 3
<br /> : APPROXIMATELY 22ND AVENUE AND THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF PEARL STREET BETWEEN 19TH AND 24TH AVENUES -
<br /> , A DRAWING, SHOWING A PROPOSED BO UNIT, TWO-LEVEL APARTMENT BUILDING TO BE BUILT IN THE FORM OF A i'
<br /> WAS SHOWN TO THE COMMITTEE. As A PART OF THE OPERATION OF THIS BUILDING, "
<br /> CIRCLE, IT WAS REQESTED THAT 'I
<br /> THE OWNERS OF THE APARTMENT BUILDING BE ALLOWED TO 'CONSTRUCT A ROADWAY INTO CITY-OWNED PROPERTY, WITH
<br /> e
<br /> ....4
<br />
|