01/24/1972 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,'. r Manager said if assessment procedure were such that sewers were paid for b!l general public and value to propert!l realized onl!l when sewer connection made, a waiver would be appropriate. But it is felt sewer construction creates value to propert!l and justifies assessment; based on that, vacant areas can be subdivided and developed, and older areas onl!l partially developed can be provided with sewer and service made available to vacant lots regardless of whether it is used. Mayor Anderson said if exception is made in this instance it would set precedent for extenuating circumstances in future situations. Mr. Emer!l replied that he felt precedent was established when cost of the stub was waived. Public Works Director said waiver of stub cost was another issue; that procedure for location of the stub in this case had not been completed wi th Mr. Emery prior to its installation. He also said even though the propert!l is only 30x150'" if a building permit is requested it would have to be issued and a building could be lo- cated an!l place on the propert!l, thereb!l making use of the sewer. Mr. Williams moved seconded b!l Mr. Hershner to place the item on file. Public Works Director said a rehearing of the assessment would have to be held at which time it could be confirmed. No vote was taken. Comm 1/12/72 File '. C). Laurelwood Lease - Copies of a letter were distributed to Council members addressed to Mrs. Dorothy Johnson from the Parks and Recreation Director terminating Mrs. Johnson's lease of Laure1wood Club building as of April 10, 1972. !n response to question from Mrs. Campbell, Manager explained refreshment use could be continued while the golf course is in operation and no later than 10:00 p.m., or an entirel!l different use compatible wi th op€)ration of the golf course, but there seems to be no need for another nightclub sucll as is in operation in the building now. It could be used as a communit!l center, although no funds are available for staffing. Some volun- teer groups have looked at it with that purpose'in mind. Mrs'. Campbell said she had been asked about its use for the aged because of lack of office space downtown" and because this would be during the day she felt it would be a good use. Manager said a meeting is scheduled wi th the Committee for Aging to explore that possibilit!l~ Mrs. Beal asked about rent from the building ($250 per llDnth) and whether it could be reduced or the building used rent free. Manager replied if used b!l volunteer groups, would probably have to forego rent; if used as a concession in conjunction with the golf course, some income would be involved. Ma!lor remarked that the intent is to find some use for the building which is, colfl)at- ib1e with operation of the golf course, and the matter will be brought back for Council action. Mr. Hershner asked if there is a chance of releasing it to the same people with different hours of operation, and Manager .answered the!l have the right of first refusal if operation changed, but at this time no agreement has been reached on closing at 10:00 p.m. Parks Director said there are man!l activities and groups to be explored to find an operation suitable for the location. Comm 1/12/72 File . R. Notices"; Council members were informed of the following meetings: A. Public hearing on 1990 General Plan before joint meeting of Lane County, Spring- field, and Eugene Planning Commissions - Thursday, January 13, 1972, 7:30 p.m., Eugene Council Chamber. B. National League of Cities Congressi~al-Cit!l Conference - March 5-7, 1972 in Washington, D.C. Comm 1112/72 File S. Mayor's Park Study Committee - Mrs. Campbell recommended reactivation of this c0m- mittee to concern itself with the Southridge PUD project relative to its effect on the proposed Ridgeline Park. There was general discussion with refliJrd to the c0m- mittee's me11i:Jership. Manager explained i~ as a joint Parks-Planning ~tudtJ Committee , which, as part of the process of reviewing the feaSibilit!l of a ridgelinepark con- cept, was created to act as a steering COIIUl'littee to work with interested citizens and the staff to bring a proposal to the Planning Commission and Council. Idea of reactivating the committee will be reviewed with the Mayor and brought back for consideration. . In answer to Mr. Mohr's question as to whom the comm1ttee would report, IIrs.Campbell said she didn't feel it necessary the committee report to the Council, but 'as a result o~ the Planning Comm1ssion~s action to table the Southridge PUD project she, felt if the committee is, to be effet:*ive it would have to be react;Lvated J.lIlIlJ8diatel!l' in order to be heard by the Planning Conm1ssion when the Jtem is brought back for discussion. Manager ~aid better d1rect!-on would be ind1catedaE,ter the, January. 24" '1972 Planning Commission meeting; a moratorium for one year on developments of great' density in the area may be advisable in order to alloW ti~ for the Planning Com-' , mission staff and the Joint Study Committee to review and attempt to report on the feasibility of the ridgeline park proposal. , Co.. 1/19/72 P1.~. ~. Audit, "ear Bnding June 30, 197' -Copies were distributed to Council members of report to management from Lybrand, ROss Bros.. & lfPJltgomery, audi tors (dated De~ .1 '"I 1/24/72 .. 10