08/23/1971 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

""'II ~ 1? e 8/23/71 I a delay might be the best answer, at least until a study could be made. , I David Cole read a prepared stat~ment and asked that the Council consider a six month delay. 'I By this time, a report could be made by the Planning Commission covering Mr. Williams I concerns. II i Eleanor Clancy, Rt. 4 Box 310, was concerned with the school situation, and felt a devel- opment such as was planned would cause overcrowding in the schools. Carl Ihle, 5409 Donald, asked if the Council was aware of the planning staff recommendation j against annexation. Mayor Anderson assured him this was discussed at the public hearing. Mr. Mulder pointed out that everything discussed at this meeting had been previously discussed at the Planning Commission meeting and the Council meeting, and the Planning f Commission had unanimously approved annexation. I I A II Mr. Teague felt people were not really against annexation, but were concerned about devel- ~ i opment of the property. It was his feeling that the city was trying to keep from having 11'1 developments outside the city and then having to inherit them. 'He felt the orderly way II was to annex before development. I. Mrs. Beal commented on the need for an overall plan, and said she would vote to rescind I , Council approval, in order to have a delay. I I 11. Mayor Anderson agreed with Mrs . Beal that this was a dilemmSl-, but he felt it was impossible I 11 to develop a plan that met all requirements. ,I Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to rescind Council approval of this annexation I' and transmit this information to the Boundary Commission. Mrs. Beal and Mrs. Campbell I .11 voted yes. ,Messrs. Mohr, Teague, Williams and Gribskov voted no. Mr. Hershner abstained. I Motion failed. I III Mr. Mohr did not believe the city could accomplish the protection desired by not having II control of the area. The development would simply go ahead. I ! I III. Items to be Considered with One Motion, after discussion of individual items, if requested. II Items were previously discussed at committee meetings of August 11 and August 18, 1971. I Committee minutes are printed in italics. , I 1..1. A. Analysis whether Mall is serving purpose for which it was designed.- Councilman Mohr I' I 8/18/71 requested a report from Eugene Renewal Agency whether or not the Eugene Mall is I fulfilling the functions for which it was designed, where it has failed, and try to I get an understanding of problems inherent in operation of the Mall. He felt the ; problems would continue to be colloidal 'unless the city gets some answers. Perhaps I a mutual di~;cussion wi th the Eugene Renewal Agency Board might be helpful to define ! the problem, s. I I Mayor Anderson suggested a joint meeting be arranged wi th ERA Board. approve . \1 B. Ad Hoc Committee, Appointment by Mayor for Bicycle Program - 'A bicycle committee was I I' 8/18/71 appointe:d by the City Manager to aid staff in the initial stages of developing a I bicycle program. With the growth of this program, it was felt the Council should be i requested to authorize the Mayor to appoint a formal ad hoc bicycle ad:visory committee. I , i II Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to authorize appointment of a bicycle Ij. committee by the Mayor to strengthen the program and use of bicycles in the area. _ I Motion carried. approve II! C. Airport Needs Study - L-COG staff study has not been formally reviewed by Council, \li 8/18/71 and action will be taken by 'L~-SOG at its September 28 meeting. I Mrs. Beal move.d seconded by Mr. Mohr that the Council request the Planning Commission I to review the L-COG Airport Needs Study and report to Council. Motion carried. approve II I i '. ii' D. Henry Camarot Request for Ci ty to Quit-Claim Interest in Park Property - Due to I I historical surveying disagreements, land which might be considered park property has II been conveyed by Mr. Camarot to another private party. ,The land in question is on Birdh I, Street and is about 1000 feet square in a strip about 10 feet by 100 feet. Both Public I Works and Parks Department staffs report the land is valueless for public purposes, \ I since it ,is nearly vertical. Staff recommends compliance with this request. I I I. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that staff be directed to meet this request. I; Motion carried. , i.l E. Mass Transi t Operational Needs Study - It is recommended that the ci ty pro vi de up to I $3750 to match wi th a similar contribution from Lane County to match $15,000 federal I funds for supplementary detailed mass transit planning. Lane County Mass Transit District has no funds in its budget for this purpose, but it is felt fuller considera- IJ tion is of utmost importance. Funds would be shifted from planning and public works I appropriations. I - 'I 'I .. Ii Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the Council authorize a transfer of funds :, it. I' j 'I '. II ': 8/23/71 - 6 ' ...