Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r268 <br /> <br />3/29/65 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />..... <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />COMMITTEE REPORTS <br /> <br />Committee meeting held March 11, 1965: <br /> <br />"Present: Councilman Chatt (presiding), Purdy, Anderson, and Lassen; City <br />M?nager; Administrative Assistant; City Attorney;: Assistant City <br />Attorney_; City Recorder; Assistant City Recorder; Pub1 ic Works - <br />. Director; 'and others.: <br /> <br />1. Sidewalk Both Sides Rustic Place from:Coburg to Sorre1- - A. petition was. <br />presented for this sidewalk signed by owners of 44% of the abutting prop- <br />erty. A remonstrance against, the project was -also presented :signed ,by <br />owners of 56% of t:he property involved. :Messrs. Paul- Green and Robert M., <br />Thompson were present to protest the sidewalk construction, and Mr. Green <br />stated that at this time some of the property owners would like to have <br />the project deferred because of the heavy assessment now levied for the <br />sanitary sewer construction. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen <br />to tab1~,the petition for one year. Motion carri~d. . <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mrs. Lauris moved seconded,:-by Dr-. Purdy to ap:pr,ove Item 1: of ,the cominittee report.: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Rev. David White, t spe'akingfor some of the: residents, in the area, asked the Council. <br />to reconsider-its committee recommendation. <br /> <br />A vote was tak~n _on the motLon,- and motion carried:. <br /> <br />2. Paving North Cleveland from Cross Street to Roosevelt Boulevard - A peti- <br />tion was. pr:esented for' -this paving :signed by owners of 56.,7%, of. the abut- <br />ting property. The public works department recommended paving Cleveland <br />to a width of 44 feet even though the existing right-of-way is 50 feet, <br />since the ar:ea is primarily industrial. . Dr.- Purdy moVed seconded by Mr. <br />Anderson, to approve. the recommendati:on~ : Motion carried. <br /> <br />3. Paving Augusta from 18th to 26th - A petition for this paving was pre- <br />sented bearing signatures' of owners of 50% of the'abut,ti:ng property. Ap- <br />proximately: 700 feet of frontage owned by School District No. 4 was i:n- <br />c1uded in the percentage figure. Dr. Purdy-moved seconded by Mr,~ Anders-on <br />to approve the petition. Motion carried. <br /> <br />4. Paving. south .side' Highland Oaks: Drive from Wilson ,to Bowmont ~ Owners of <br />53% of the property to be assessed petitioned the paving of the south <br />half of Highland Oaks Drive from Wilson to Bowmont. ~he public, works de- <br />partment reported the north half of this street was paved befo-re the <br />south half was annexed to the City. Dr. Purdy moved seconded by Mr.' <br />Anderson to app!ove"the petition. Motion carried. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mrs. Lauris moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to approve Items 2, 3, and 4 of the committee <br />report. Motion carried. <br /> <br />5. Ordinance. Deferred. Assessment :for Sanitary Sewers :- Copies of a. proposed <br />ordinance deferring sanitary sewer assessments in some instances were dis- <br />t,ributed t,o Council 'member:s for s:tudy .:No action was taken. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />,6. Storm.Sewer Assessment Method: - _ The _public works dir.ector explained some <br />of the: problems experi,enced. by the City. in the. s:torm: sewer construction <br />program. The cost of storm sewer construction over the last several years <br />has exceeded that projected in the storm and sanitary sewer study pre- <br />sente~, to :the Counc_il in 1,961. Figures quoted by the public works di- <br />rector indicate that a considerable portion of storm sewer const.ruction <br />money was used in new subdivisions and in some areas not included in the <br />~ origi,nalsewer study area. : The: Council ~as discussed cost of .storm <br />sewer construction previously. butnQ acceptaple plan has been established. <br />A proposal is now presented for assessment of certain costs of storm <br />sewer construction to ,bene:f:ited_:propertie~., . C,onsiderablediscussion <br />followed' .by me~bers of the Coun~il, and que/3ti-on~ were asked by the city <br />attorney with regard to certain situations involving civil law and dis- <br />position of drainage waters. No action was taken. <br /> <br />7. A letter from Eugene-Springfield Home Builders Association was x.ead <br />which commended Emile Mortier, superintendent of building inspection, <br />for his time and co-operatfun in review and adoption of the Uniform <br />Building Code, 1964 Edition.'~ <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mrs. Lauris moved seconded by Mr. Hawk to hold Items 5 and 6 for further considera- <br />tion, and receive and file Item 7. Motion carried. <br /> <br />3/29/65 - 2 <br /> <br />e <br />