01/28/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e. , Councilman' McDonald supported the moratorium suggested, saying the present cutting in the South Hills would have to be stopped. Mayor Anderson suggested turning the question ~o the legal staff to see what could be done either to effect a moratorium within a short time or prepare an ordinance, with the Council being prepared to meet on call and waiving the usual notice procedures for special meeting. 1699 Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Wood to instruct the legal staff to prepare an ordinance placing a moratorium on tree 'cutting in the South Hills area for con- sideration at the January 30 committee meeting after which an emergency Council meeting could be held for adopting the ordinance. In making the motion Mrs. Beal said that a temporary moratorium ordinance contained within a pe~mit-system ordinance would be satisfactory if prepared immediately, but she didn't think, action should wait until a general ordinance covering tree preservation in the entire City~as prepared. . Councilman McDonald wondered if staff could ,be given authority to enforce a ban on further cuttrhg in the South Hills while the legal work was being prepared. Councilman Murray asked whether an injunction could be placed against cutting occurring within the South Hills study area. Mr. Long, reluctant to give an opinion on the spot, recalled that the attorney's office at the time Mr. Braatz' logging operation was brought to the Council's attention, agreed there were no legal tools with which the City could stop the operation. The ordinance now before the Council for redraft was intended as a stop-gap measure. Nothing much could be done he said without a new ordinance which would have to consider zoning issues, per- , , mits, certain State laws, etc. Councilwoman Campbell urged an emergency meeting of the Council to take action as soon as possible to stop the present cutting. Mayor hoped the final draft of an ordinance would consider long-range implications rather than being prepared as a temporary measure to take care of the immediate situation. 1762 Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. .1.. Appeal, HoLiday Inn Sign - David James,' attorney representing Holiday 'Iim, re- quested postponement of consideration of appeal of Sign Code Board of Appeals idenial of variance which would permit nonconforming'sign to remain at 225 Coburg ~ Road. Staff recommended postponement. i , : Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to postpone the hearing on the appeal to i the February 11 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. \ Comm \1/23/74 \Approve \ . J.: Lane County Auditorium Association Request for Room Tax Funds- Copies were ~ previously furnished to Council members of a letter from the Lane County Audi torium) : Association requesting that two-thirds of room tax funds now on hand and those re- ,I ,ceived in the future be set aside for use by LCAA through the calendar year 1976. ,i fCopiep of tabulation ~howing present status of room t~x.funds were distributed. 1 : Staff suggested that ~f the request was granted, prov~s~on should be made for a I jfirm 90ntract with the Association spelling out the work to be accomplished and i 'the costs thereof. . -- James,Kays, chairman of the Association subcommittee charged with continuing efforts toward aChieving an auditorium in the community, spoke of the request and the Association's review of the outcome of two elections at which the proposal :was rejected. He said the Association does not at this time have specific ex- Ipenditures in mind, but was concerned with having a sound financial base for jexploration of means to construct an auditorium. Other sources of revenue would :.be looked at wi th the possibili ty of accomplishing the project wi th very Ii ttle [public funds. In answer to Councilman Williams, Mr. Kays said the request was [presented to the Council because of its prerogative to refer it to the Room Tax !Allocation Committee. i I iCouncilman Murray felt referral to the Allocation Committee would be misleading. We could not support the request, saying he was "flabbergasted" that the Associa- [tion would present the request after the auditorium proposal was twice defeated !.~ t the poll s . Further use of ~!!~_ fU_l!~~. ~~. promo te th~ ~~ !l9_~!?E.~ uIrl...~.l:!~.cl._~~_,~l}~ n- J !sult, he said. Counqi1wo;'-;;'~"Beal ;epii~dthat thep~~ject was riot defeated be-' l . .' '. ' . . I cause ~ twas not wanted, rather because the voters did not want an increasei'n \ [taxes. She said the room tax was adopted with the idea that the funds would be \ [for an auditorium, so the Association should have a prior claim on those funds. \ , IIn answer to Councilman Keller, Mr. Kays said in researching outcome of the !electio~s t~e Association sensed that the auditorium was wanted in the community, : 'that reJect~on was more on the basis of location rather than whether an auditorium, was wanted. Councilman McDonald expressed his support for having an auditorium . in the community and felt the Council should indicate support of the request in : referring it to the Room Tax Committee for recommendation. 26 --~-"T'-'-~~'--'-~ , 1/28/74 - 15