Laserfiche WebLink
<br />/1 ~ <br /> <br /> <br />e <br /> <br /> <br />8/22/60 <br /> <br />;' il <br />;1 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ii <br />.' I <br />I ' I T WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER AND SECONDED BY MRS. LA'UR I S THAT ITEM 7 OF THE COMM I TTEE REPORT il <br />-'BE -APP-R'OVED. - MOT I ON~ARR I ED. <br />-. . -. . . - . - - .. . <br /> <br />I -S; '_-CONS'-DERATi-ONOF -aR-TAIN 'TRAFF'-C- 'AND P-AR-K-'NG CHANGE-S, BYT-HE- TRAFFIC ENGINEI>R- A MEMO- <br />RANDUM FROM THE,TRAFFIC ENG8NEER WAS READ TO THE COMMITTEE, ~N WHICH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS <br />WERE MADE BY THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER: <br /> <br />A. CURBSIDE POSTAL DROP BOX AT 5TH AND W1LLAMETTE: <br />THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION MEMORANDUM INDICATED THAT HE HAD BEEN IN CONTACT WITH <br />THE POSTMASTER AND THAT THE POSTMASTER HAD AGREED TO TRY A PLAN WHICH WOULD PLACE A DROp BOX ON <br />THE SOUTH CURB ~ 5TH AVENUE NEAR THE CORNER OF WILLAMETTE, LEAVING CLEAR~NCE FOR THE PEDESTRIAN <br />CROSSWALK. FOUR PARKING METERS WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED AND THE BUS ZONE USED AS A STORAGE AREA <br />WHILE WAITING TO DRIVE UP TO THE BOX. <br />THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION BE ADOPTED AS OUTLINED. <br />MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. <br /> <br />e ~ B. PARK I NG METER STUDY: <br />THE TRAFFIC: ENGINEER'S MEMORANDUM STATED T~AT HE HAD BEEN REQUESTED BY THE RETAIL MERCHANT'S <br />ASSOCIATION TO NOT TAKE ACTION UNTIL THEY HAD TRIED TO FIND SOME SOLUTION. THE 5~ FOR 15 MINUTE <br />PARKING WOULD AFFECT ABOUT 150 PARKING METERS IN THE PRIME AREA. THE MEMORANDUM STATED THAT IF <br />THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION IS NECESSARY AT THIS TIME, HE WOULD RECOMMEND AGAINST THE 5~ <br />FOR 15 MINUTES PARKING. No ACT tON WAS TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE. <br />- - ' <br /> <br /> <br />I 3 C. THE 19TH AND WI LLAMETTE I NTERSECT ION: <br />, , THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S MEMORANDUM INDICATED THAT THE 19TH AND W,LLAMETTE INTERSECTION SITUATION <br />WOULD BE ELIMINATED WHEN THE HIGH-PEARL COUPLET IS PUT INTO EFFECT. ~E STATED THAT HE IS AWAITING <br />MATERIALS FOR THE HIGH-PEARL AT 19TH SIGNAL INSTALLATI~. No ACTION WAS TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE. <br /> <br />t D. TWO-WAY TRAFFIC ON_ PARK BLOCKS:. _ ,,' _ _ _ <br />THE TRAFF I C ENG I NEER I ND I CATED HE HAD MADE A STUDY OF THE PROREAL TO MAIf: PARK STREETS TWO- <br />WA Y STREETS. BECAUSE I T WOULD BE NECESSARY TO MAKE ALL PARK I NG PARALLEL, IT \-iOULD B'E NECESSARY TO <br />PROVIDE SIGNALIZATION AT THE POINTS WHERE PARK INTERSECTS WITH OAK ANDSTH AVENUE. AT THE NORTHERLY <br />EXTENSION OF WEST PARK STREET, THE CITY HAS ONLY A 14'ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE ENTRANCE TO AND EXIT <br />FROM 7TH AVENUE IS VERY CONGESTED IN TIMES OF PEAK TRAFFIC. <br />THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION AGAINST TWO-WAY TRAFFIC <br />IN THE PARK BLOCKS BE APPROVED. ~OTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. <br />THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT ITEMS B, C, AND D OF THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT BE RECEIVED <br />AND PLACED ON FILE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. <br /> <br />IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER AND SECONDED BY MRS. LAURIS THAT I~M 8 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT <br />BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. <br /> <br />( , 9. CONSI DERATION OF REQUEST BY EUGENE VEf-.JN TO PURCHASE PARCEL OF PROPERTY BETWEEN 30TH AND <br />31ST AVENUES ON FERRY STREET- - ' THE COMMITTEE VIEWED THE PROPERTY WHICH HAD' BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE <br />CITY THROUGH FORECLOSURE OF PAVING AND SEWER LIENS, AND WAS INFORMED THAT THERE WAS NOW A TOTAL <br />OF $726.28 IN ASSESSMENTS ACCUMYLATED AGAINST_ THIS PROPERTY. <br />THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT MR. VENN'S OFFER OF $660.00 FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY <br />I BE REJECTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. <br /> <br />I T WAS'MOVED B'{ MR-. SHE ARER' AND SECONDED BY MRS. tjl'-URIS' Tf:lA TI TEM 9 OF ,THE COMM I TTEE REPORT <br />BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. <br /> <br />A REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE MEETING HELD AUGUST IS, 1960. <br />PRESENT: MAYOR CONE; COUNCILMEN SHEARER, MOLHOLM, CHATT, MOYER, WILSON AND SWANSON; CITY <br />MANAGER; CITY RECORDER; CITY ATTORNEY; CITY ENGINEER; SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION; MRS. <br />~ NIVEN OF-THE-PLANNING COMMISSIO~; MR. A~ MRS~ ANDERSON;:MR. EASTON; DAN WYAWT OF THE EUGENE REGISTER- <br />.., GUARD. COUNCILMEN MCGAFFEY AND LAURS WERE ABSENT. <br /> <br />o I. RECONSIDERATION OF REQUEST Fffi REZONING THE EAST 1/2 BLOCK OF BLOCK I, MELROSE ADDITION, <br />'LocATEb ON THE WEST SIDE OF W)LLAMETTE' STREET BETWEEN 24TH AVENUE AND 24TH PLA~E, ENTERED BY McDANIEL- I <br />KNUTSEN - ANDERSON - REQUEST FOR ZONE CHANGE FROM R-I TO C:'3P. THE PLANN I I'-G' COMM I SS I ON RECONS I DERED <br />THIS MATTER AT A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND REAFFIRMED ITS <br />ORIGINAL REPORT THAT THE AREA BE REZONED TO R-2. THERE WAS GENERAL DISCU?SION ON THIS SUBJECT, <br />PARTICULARLY AS TO THE LIMITATIONS WHICH MIGHT BE PLACED ON COMMERCIAL ZONING, IF THIS AREA WERE TO <br />BE REZONED TO C:-'3P AS~:RE:QUE\STE:o:;!:,~,:;Fo,LIl:OW,rNG;~SOME:COf.fS!IIDERABt.JE;:Co-I,SG'US:STONIJ, IN WH I CH MEMBERS OF THE <br />COMMITTEE WERE HEARD, AS WELL AS MR. AND MRS. ANDERSON, A VOTE WAS TAKEN WHICH RESULTED IN A TIE, <br />WITH MR. MOLHOLM, MR. CHATT AND MR. WILS~N VOTING AYE AND MR. SHEARER, MR. MOYER AND MR. SWANSON <br />VOTING NO, AND WITH THE MAYOR ABSTAINING. <br />FOLLOWING THE VOTE THERE WAS. SOME DISCUSSION AS TO HOW FAR NORTH BUSINESS ZONING MI~T BE <br />ALLOWED, AND THERE WAS GENERAL CONCURRENCE THAT 24TH STREET SHOU~D BE THE DIVIDI~G LlNE, BUT THAT <br />THIS WOULD NOT BE DEFINITELY ESTABLISHED AT THIS TIME. <br />I M~. MOYER STATED THAT HE WAS IN FAVOR OF GRANTING A VARIANCE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE PARTIES RE~ <br />QUESTING REZONING TO SUBMIT A PLAN SHOWING THE INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY. MR. JOLSON SPOKE IN <br />FAVOROFMAINTAIN;NG-tHE ZONE SiNCE THERE',S A CONsiDERABLE NUMBER OF EXPENSIVE HOMES IN THE AREA <br />WHICH WOULD BE DEPRECIATED IF COMMERCIAL ZON(firnGqwERE ALLOWED. MR. ANDERSON, ONE OF THE PARTIES <br />REQUESTING THE REZONING, STATED THAT HE ~AS QUITE FRUSTRATED AND OVER A PERDD OF 10 YEARS HAD ENDEAVORED <br />TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF WHAT TO DO ~ITH HIS PROPERTY, SI,NCE HE CANNOT DISPOSE OF IT FOR RESIDENTIAL <br />PURPOSES AND CANNOT OBTAIN REZONING IN ORDER THAT IT COULD BE USED FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE. <br /> <br />IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER AND SECONDED BY MR. MOYER THAT THE REZONING BE REFUSED AND THAT IT <br />~ BE SUGGESTED TO THE PERSONS REQUESTING THE REZONING THAT THEY DEVELOP PLANS SHOWING THE INTENDED USE <br /> <br /> <br />.... <br />