02/26/1968 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r- 80 e 2/26/68 --- --- -----.---- ---- -,~- ~-~- ---- ~ --- ---------- ----- - -+~ - ----- - -- ---~ -.,.- -'-' ---- --- - - -.......--._-- --- - --- 1 b. CLPC Political Structure Study - The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council further previous action of the Community Goals Committee by reque.st-, ing Central Lane Planning Council to implement a committee for the study of re- alignment of central Lane County governmental agencies to afford political solu- tions to metropolitan problems. Mrs. Lauris moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to approve the recommendation, and report back an estimate of the cost involved. Motion carried. I 2 ill. Planning Commission Report - February 6, 1968 a. Vacation of Stony Ridge Road running northeast from Agate Street; and b. Vacation of portion of Shasta Loop Road south of Spring Boulevard, Spliid - The Planning Commission recommended vacation of both dedications. The City Manager explained Shasta Loop Road.will be relocated with exchange of properties and replatting of the area. Mr. Wingard moved seconded by Mrs. Lauris to approve the recommendations. Motion carried. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to approve Items 7 through 11. Motion carried, Mr. Wingard abstaining on Item 8a. e With regard to Item lOb, Mrs. Lauris suggested Orville Etter as one experienced in this type.of governmental organization. 3 12. Assessment Segregations a. Paving and sewer assessment, 2410 CalYoung Road (File S68B) - J. E. Kuykendall requested segregation of $1,616.26, leaving a principal balance of $1,141.86; and b. Sewer Assessment, Bendix Avenue (File S67H) - Leo S. Cott requested segregation of $1,684.59 leaving a balance of $745.93. The Finance Department recommended approval of both. Mr. Wingard moved seconded by Mrs. Lauris to approve. Motion carried." I Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to approve Item 12 of the Committee report. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, motion carried. 4 Other items on February 15 agenda not considered at that time: 1. Planning Commission Report - February 6, 1968 (Continued) a. Rezone R-2 both side 27th between Washington and Jefferson, Land Associates - The Plan- ning Commission reaffirmed recommendation of denial after rehearing because of an error in the legal description. " Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Dr. Purdy to deny the rezoning. Motion carried, Mr. Lassen abstaining. 5 b. Variance for Duplex on Interior Lot, Willamette between 36th and 37th, Cargill - The Planning Commission recommended approval. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to approve the recommendation. Motion carried. 6 C. Side Street Grade Crossing - The City Manager explained there is no public dedication of Side Street, a short street crossing the Oregon Electric tracks between Wilkie Street and Highway 99N. It existed by virtue of a private permit given by O&E which was recently revoked and barricades installed to permit further installations by O&E. Petitioners requested the street's reopening and indicated they would go through the courts to gain use of the street based onits many years' use as a public thoroughfare. The Manager said State law provides that only a plililic body may petition the Public Utility Commissioner for grade crossings, hence this request to the Council. The PUC also might order signalization and establish the distribution of costs of such signalization. The Planning Commission recommended proceeding with application to the PUC for the Side Street grade crossing. I e Moe Thomas said the Planning Commission intent in its recommendation was that the Council request a hearing only before the PUC, not actually apply for a grade crossing. The City Attorney sa~d th~ o~iy wAy t~e item could be put before the PUC was to apply for the crossing. Mr. Andenson'~moved0seconded by Mr. Lassen to refer the item back to the Planning Commission for clari- fication since Mr. Thomas said that the Planning Commission was not aware of not being able- to resolve the issue before the PUC without an application. Motion ca.rried, Mrs. Lauris voting no.' I 7 I d. Zone Change Restriction - The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Plan Ad- visory Committee's resolution that the City not initiate any major zone change, but that individual rezoning requests be considered on their individual merit during the next twelve months to allow development of the comprehensive general plan. It was also recommended that if any major zone changes are considered, theCen~ral Lane Plan- ning Council be consulted prior to any action. ;.' I Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to approve the recommendation. In response to a question from Bob Suess as to what constitutes a major zone change, the Planning Director explained it would be one which would substantially' alter density, increase commercial activities or establish new ones, or extend commercial or multiple- family areas. A vote was taken on the motion to approve, and motion carried. - ~, 2/26/68 - 18