My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/28/1986 Meeting (2)
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1986
>
04/28/1986 Meeting (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2007 4:51:04 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 4:19:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
4/28/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />also noted that the resolution allowed a 30-day extension, if the owner was <br />proceeding in a timely manner and circumstances arose that were beyond his <br />control. She said Building Safety Section staff recommended that the council <br />determine, by resolution, that the property known as the Topper Trailer Court <br />was unsafe and order that the unsafe conditions be abated. <br /> <br />Ms. Wooten asked why the resolution should be adopted if substantial progress <br />was being made. Ms. Miller said that staff wanted to ensure completion of all <br />corrective work. She said permit applications still were needed for carports <br />and some other problems. Ms. Miller said she believed 30 days was long enough <br />to allow the work to be done because site preparation had been started, and <br />she added that the 30-day extension also was allowed. <br /> <br />Mr. Hansen noted that the process had been lengthy, and he asked whether it <br />could be speeded up in the future. Mr. Gleason said process redesign was <br />needed and could be done. <br /> <br />Ms. Bascom said she thought 30 days seemed like a short time for repair work, <br />and she asked whether that limit could be extended if progress was being <br />made. Mr. Gleason said that would require a separate council action. He <br />noted that the issue had first come up in November, an original abatement date <br />of January 12 had been set, and he said he thought the process should come to <br />a final end now. <br /> <br />Mayor Obie opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />Mike Hall, 717 Highway 99 North, said the property was old, but he believed it <br />had been shown to be safe and sanitary. He said illness and lack of income <br />had contributed to some problems, but he did not think violations were bad <br />enough to cut off power to tenants or to condemn the property. He said work <br />had been done in an attempt to comply with codes. He said requirements of <br />both the City electrical inspector and the fire marshal had been met, and <br />other City building systems had been slow and cumbersome. He also said any <br />non-compliance had existed when the property was purchased. Mr. Hall said <br />plans had been submitted in January, but more costly, engineered plans were <br />wanted. He said additional plans and permit applications had then been sub- <br />mitted on April 7. Mr. Hall said water pressure tested at 75 pounds, and <br />water bacteria count was better than the EWEB average, indicating no contami- <br />nated water or sewage on the ground. <br /> <br />Mr. Hall said about $5,000 had been lost since November because spaces and <br />mobile homes could not be rented, although they had been approved by the City <br />before and were in good workable order. He said no broken sewer lines or <br />sewage could be found at an on-site meeting in March. He also said several <br />tenants were in attendance tonight, and he said they hoped the council would <br />not require additional improvements that would require a rent increase. He <br />said residents believed the park provided a healthy and safe environment, and <br />he invited visits to the park. He said additional tests would be permitted, <br />but he added that he thought they should be done at City cost, because they <br />already had incurred more costs than they should have. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />April 28, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.