|
<br /> i'83~
<br /> e ,
<br /> :
<br /> I
<br /> ti I
<br /> II
<br /> I 8 II COMMUNICATION rROM'MRS. BLAIR T. ALDERMAN - REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR BUILDING USE WAS
<br /> II SUBMITTED AND RtAD AS 80LLOWS:
<br /> I -
<br /> II "I HAVE A PIRCE OF PROPERTY AT 141-1/2 WEST 17TH AVENUE WITH WHICH I AM HAVING
<br /> I CONSIDERABLE DIFFICULTY. THE BUILDING WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES
<br /> ,I AND WAS USED fJ..S-'SUCH UNTIL A II TTLE OVER TWO YEARS'AGO. IT WAS LAST OCCUPIED, FOR
<br /> i
<br /> ~ I BUS I NESS USA.GE, BY THE GENERAL SIGN COMPANY.
<br /> L"J ,
<br /> I THE APARTMENT ABOVE.
<br /> Q(J I BUILDING CONSISTS OF A LA.RGE; OPEN LOWER/AREA WITH A SMALL
<br /> I
<br /> <! I: THE ZONING LAW WENT INTO EFFECT WHILE THE GENERAL SIGN COMPANY WAS OCCUPYING THE
<br /> ....-=l Ii BUILDING AND, WHEN TH~Y VACATED IT, I~ RENTED I T"F.:OR,Jt'1 VI NG PURPOSES ONLY. SINCE THAT I
<br /> ~ d TIME I HAVE HAD SEVERAL CHANGES OF TENANTS, ALL VE.RY UNDESI RABLE. ' IT SEEMS IMPOSSiBLE
<br /> , TO FIND A SATISFACTORY TENANT FOR THE APARTMENT ALONE~ THEY ALL HAVE USED THE LOWER
<br /> 'I
<br /> "
<br /> 'I PAR,T FOR SOMETHING THAT GIVES T'HE APPE AR ANC E OFl BEING I NDUSTR I AU, EVEN THOUGH THEY I
<br /> Ii HAVE ALL DENIED DOING SO.
<br /> "
<br /> il NEIGHBORS WITH WHOM I HAVE' TAL~ED AGREE WI TH ME, -'THAT I COULD GET A MUCH 'BETTER I
<br /> e II TENANT, ONE MUCH MORE ACCEPTABLE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I.F I OOULD. R.ENT TO SOMEONE WHO
<br /> 11 WOULD CARRY ON A CLEAN, QUI ET, NON-HAZARDOUS BUSINESS.
<br /> I - . ,
<br /> II WITH THIS INoMIND, I ASK THE COUNCIL IF THEY WILL GIVE ME eERMISSION TO SEaK SOME
<br /> II
<br /> , TYPE OF COMMERCIAL RENTER. FOR SUCH A RENTER 1 COULD AFFORD TO FIX THE BUILDING UP SO
<br /> I NE I GHBORHOOD.'"
<br /> I: IT AND ITS TENfJ..NTS COULD BE AN ADDITION RATHER THA tiJ A 'DE TR I ME'NT TO THE
<br /> II I _, _I - _'J
<br /> I I' IT WAS MOVED BY GODLOVE, SECONDED BY KOPPE THAT THE COMMUNICATION BE REFERRED TO THE
<br /> I PUBLfC WORKS COMMI'TTE'E. MOTl ON CARR I ED. I
<br /> "
<br /> " ,
<br /> "
<br /> I,
<br /> 9 II COMMUNICATION FROM THE SHEET METAL CONTRACTOR'S ASSOCIATION - RE: REFRIGERATION
<br /> "
<br /> 'i ORDINANCE'WAS SUBMITTED AND ORDERED ATTA.CHED TO THE PROPOSED ORDI:NANCE FOR STUDY.
<br /> II
<br /> 10 11 COMMUNICATION FROM THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION - RE: AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION
<br /> "
<br /> Ii BUILDING - CONTROL TOWER WAS SUBMITTED AND READ AS FOLLOWS: ; I
<br /> Ii J.' ' ;
<br /> I,
<br /> I: "IN REPLY TO YOUR LE'TTER OF AUGUST 5TH,' WE 'WERE GLAD TO HEAR THAT WORK ON YOUR NEW
<br /> ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IS PROGRESSI NG" SATI SFACTOR I LY. WE ALSO NOTE WITH INTEREST YOUR
<br /> - , BREA-KD'OWN OF 'AI'R TRAFFIC ACTIVITY AT MAHLON SWEET AIRPORT COVERING THE PAST SIX MONTHS.
<br /> I INFORMATION OF THIS TYPE IS OF CONSIDERABLE .ASSISTANCE TO US IN SUPPORTI NG OUR RECOMMEN-
<br /> [,
<br /> II DATIONS CONCERN~NG THE ESTABLISHMENT OF VARIOUS FEDERAL AIRWAYS AIDS WITHIN THE REGION.
<br /> . I,
<br /> il ~ 'v.fE BELIEVE THAT'IT wrLL BE OF INTEREST TO YOU TO KNOW THAT WE HAVE FORWARDED A REQUEST
<br /> II
<br /> " TO OUR WASHINGTON OFFICE FOR AUTHO'R'I TY TO INSTALL THE COMMUNI CA.TI ONS STATION I NTHE
<br /> I' CONTROL TOWER. IF PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO DO THIS, THE INSAC WILL, OF COURSE, HAVE TO
<br /> ,I
<br /> Ii CONTINUE TO FUNCTION AS A'COMMUNICATIONS STATION ONLY UNTIL SUCH TI ME .'AS CONTROL TOWER
<br /> ,I OPERATION IS AUTHORI'Z'ED. , ,.
<br /> "
<br /> i!
<br /> WE WILL CONTINUE TO KEEP YOU ADVISED OF THE PROGRESS'BEING MADE IN T.HIS MATTER. "
<br /> "
<br /> "
<br /> "
<br /> I'
<br /> , THE COMMUNI CAlTI ON WAS RECE'I.'VED 'AND PLACED ON FILE.
<br /> I,
<br /> I II I ' ,
<br /> 'i
<br /> I I I COMMUNICATION FROM THE ORE GON STA TE SANITARY AUTHORITY TO THE~eONSULTING ENGINEERS - RE:
<br /> "
<br /> I' SEWAGE DISPOSAL PLANT WAS-SUBMITTED AND'READ AS FOLLOWS:
<br /> II . ,
<br /> Ii "THIS EUGENE SEWAGE TREATMENT
<br /> II IS IN REGARD TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
<br /> I'
<br /> il PLANT WHICH WERE COMPLETED BY YOUR FIRM IN MAY, 1952, AND WHICH WERE SUBMITTED TO US FOR
<br /> I: OUR REV I EW ?,N JUNE I I, ,1952.. ON J UL Y 18, .ADDENDA Nos. I AND 2 TO THE CONT.RACTDOOUMENTS
<br /> II FOR THIS PROJECT WERE ALSO SUBMITTED FOR OUR INFORMATION.
<br /> :,
<br /> e :i OUR COM~LETED ON JULY
<br /> I REVIEW OF THE PLANS AND,SPECIFICATIONS WAS 8, BUT ACTION ,WAS
<br /> :1 DEFERRED PENDING A FURTHER STUDY OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS F;OR THE SLUDGE DIGE~TER
<br /> CAPACITY.
<br /> I
<br /> i ACCORDING TO THE BA.S I C DESIGN DATA AND THE PLANS WHICH WERE SUBMITTED, THE .EUGE NE
<br /> I ,~ E WAG E ' T REA T MEN TWO R K S W ~ ' L L HAVE CAPACITY TO SERVE ,AN UL TI MATE POPYL~TI ON ,qF ~o,ooo AND
<br /> I
<br /> .. AN AVERAGE DAILY DRY WEATHER FLOW .OF 10,000,000 GALLONS " THE,TREATMENT UNITS INCLUDE (I )
<br /> ,I
<br /> :, MECHANICALLY CLEA.N~D BAR SCREEN, (2) RAW SEWAGE LIFT PUMPS, (3) AERATED GRIT CHAMBER, (4)
<br /> ,
<br /> , - I
<br /> II PRE-AERATION, (5 ) PRIMARY CLARIFIER, (6 ) 2 - STA.GE SEPARATE SLUDGE 01 GESTERS, (7) SLUDGE
<br /> :1 .. , DEWAT.ERING FACILITIES, INCLUDING ELUTRIATION AND VACUUM FILTRATION, AND (8) CHLORINATION.
<br /> I: ,
<br /> I I N OUR LETTER OF APRIL 5, 1950, SETTING FORTH THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE
<br /> SANITARY AUTHORITY FOR A SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT LOCATED NEAR THE CONFLUENCE OF THE
<br /> I - ,WI LLAMETTE AND McKENZIE RIV~RS, I TWAS STATED THAT PRIMARY TREATMENT WITH CHLORINATI.ON
<br /> ~ i PLUS FACILITIES F9~ RE;MOVAL,OF COLOR CAUSED BY INDUSTRIAL .WASTES ,WOULD BE REQUIRED.
<br /> 'I
<br /> I II
<br /> II THE MAJOR SOURCE OF COLOR IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS THE PROCESSING OF RED BEETS BY
<br /> " THE EUGENE FRUI T GROWERS ,ASSOCI ATI ON CANNERY. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT, IF IT SHOULD
<br /> , -
<br /> I BECO~~ ,NECESSARY, PRETREATMENT OF THESE INDUST~IAL WASTES WILL,,~E PROV I,DED A, T THE CANNERY
<br /> I !
<br /> FOR PURPOSES OF COLOR REMOVAL RATHER THAN PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FACILITIES AT THE SEWAGE
<br /> i TREATMENT PLANT FOR SUCH A PURPOSE.
<br /> I
<br /> I THE DESIGN OF THE DIGESTERS WAS BASED ON 2.0 CU. FT. PER CAPITA PLUS 18,700 CU. FT. o"
<br /> I
<br /> I CAPACITY FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTES. IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE ALLOWANCE FOR INDUSTRIAL
<br /> e II WASTES IS NOT ANY TOO LARGE. ITS ADEQUACY WILL DEPEND UPON THE EFFICIENCY OF THE
<br /> I ELUTRIATION AND ALSO UPON THE REMOVAL OF FLOATING SOLIDS FROM THE INDUSTRIAL WASTES BY
<br /> ,I MEANS OF FINE SCREENS.
<br /> !! ~
<br />
|