08/23/1971 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,...- ~~ e I' II :1 I II Council Chamber :: Eugene, Oregon " August 23, 19711 " i: Adj ourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His i: Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30p.m. on August 23, 1971 in the Council Chamber, with the \1 following councilmen present: " i: il Teague Gribskov ii Mohr Williams , " ' ,: McDonald Campbell Ii Ii Beal Hershner ',' I; 'i ii 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS :: I: A. Action on the hearing of Boise Cascade, tabled August 9, 1971 ,I II (i A public hearing was held on this request August 9, 1971. Council decided to table the e i! matter to give an opportunity to study information received at that meeting. , " Ii In answer to Councilman Williams, Planning Director outlined reasons for staff position, and how further information had altered that position. They now agree with the Planning ;: Commission that schools would be adeq.uate, and since learning of FHA requirements, no longer I !1 recommend one-bedroom units in place of the three-bedroom units. I :, Mrs. Niven explained the Planning .commission recommendation, and the need for more housing !: for moderate income families. The city has provided housing for low income elderly, but I I: has neglected the moderate income families, which is contrary, to FHA policy and requirements. I: Ii In answer to Mr. Hershner's concerns, Manager explained that one of the conditions of :' Planning Commission approval was that Brewer Avenue be properly developed. II Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the decision of the Planning Commission be upheld. Motion carried. Mr. Teague and Mr. McDonald v.oted no. i: B. Appeal, Zoning Boar.d of Appeals Decision, Dean C. Ing A public hearing had been scheduled on this matter for this date, but unfortunately, ~i the City Council has not had an opportunity to view the property. If the Council feels, after hearing the testimony, that they still wish to view the property, the decision : may be delayed. City Manager read the minutes of the Board of Appeals meeting. He commented that a letter had been received this day from Mr. Battaile wherein he stated that he appreciated the need for a fence along the east property line, but he suggested it be limited in length and location. Mr. lng's letter of appeal was previously distributed to Council. Mr. Dean lng, 15 West 35th Place, said he had not intended to fence the entire property, and that the 80' length suggested by Mr. Battaile was satisfactory. He explained the I location of the properties in the neighborhood and how such a fence would provide . pri vacy. He showed line of sight drawings to the Council to demonstrate his point. :: There was no one to speak in opposition to this request. Councilman McDonald said he would prefer to have an opportunity to view this property before making a decision. 'I " In answer to Mr. Williams, Building Superintendent explained that it was the feeling , - of the Board of Appeals that landscaping would be superior to fencing to 'QDtairi~the desired privacy. -- -." ': - ~ Mr. Ing ~xplained the expense of purchasing plantings of sufficient height, or planting smaller shrubs and waiting for them to grow. He did not feel he had sufficient time to wait. Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the Council hold this item until the property had been viewed. Motion carried. C. Firefighters Request for Reimb~rsement, for Attorney Fees, Collective Bargaining Liti- gation. (Minutes of Committee meeting below for Council information) 8/11/71 Local 851 Eugene Firefighters and Local l724A AFSCME have each demanded payment by 1- the City of $1,317.37 for costs of litigation. Copies of their correspondence and i: opinions of both the former and present City Attorney were circulated previously to Counci lmen. " City Attorney said that, as a general policy" litigants in our courts are not entitled to recover attorney fees, unless specifically provided by statute. The Ci ty Council would have the authority to compensate someone, but it was not part of the judgment that the litigant would receive attorney fees. The court could have awarded costs to either party, but it did not, and there is no basis in law for the City to be required ~ 8/23/71 - 1 ~