|
<br /> 5 ~ ,f~
<br /> '~\.,/
<br /> e
<br /> - -- - -- , .
<br /> '"
<br /> .' OFF'lCE BUILDINGS" MOTELS, ETC., THAT WO,UlD DESTROY THIS F,OR'RESIDENCE. I
<br /> As THIS ZONING NOW STANDS, WOULD ANY MEM~ER OF THE COUNCIL BUY A PLACE FOR
<br /> '-RES'IDENC;E IN THIS BLOCK? t - ,
<br /> 4
<br /> . . - .. ' --.
<br /> THANKI NG' 'YOU, I AM " ,- - .. ~
<br /> - . - :
<br /> I T WAS MOVED B-Y MR. WATSON SECONDED' BY: MR. HARTMAN -THAT THE. COMMI TTEE 'REPORT BE ADOPTED
<br /> AND REZONI NG OF THE AREA -I N' QUESTION' TO.C-3P,COMMERC;I-AL BE DENI ED. - Mo:rl ON CARRI ED.
<br /> .. . ,-
<br /> "F. REQUEST F'OR REZ{)NI'NG LOTS 3 'T.HROUGH 7,' BLOCK 2, L,'ZZ'I E' LUCKE1\' ADDI TI ON, LO- ,
<br /> CATEDON; WESTS I DE ::OF WI LLAMETTE' S'TRE-E'T. BETWEEN !.8TH 'AND' 19;TH" AVENUES' SOUTH
<br /> OF' THE C-3P ZONE F'ROM CR TO C-3P COMMERC I AJ- -' THE COMM I T'TEE' CONS I'DERED THE
<br /> ABOVE REQUEST INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND RECOMMENDED F'OR DENIAL
<br /> . BY THE PLANNING C.OMMI SSION-.- - AF'TER. ,SOME DI SCUSSI ONTHE'COMMI :rTEE RECOMMENDED
<br /> THAT'THE.REQUEST BE' REF'ERREO, BACI< TO- THE' PLANNI Ne COMMI SSI ON'F'OR: RECONSI DERA-
<br /> TION' BY THE FULL COMMISS~ON." :.- - ~ '. - - .. - .
<br /> I .,. -- ., . "'0 . .. i e
<br /> I.T WAS MOVED 'ByMR. WATSON 'SECONDED BY MR.' HARTMAN THAT THE COMMI.TTEE REPORT BE ADOPTED.
<br /> MOTION CARRIED.':" ::t-:' ~,!, . .;: - ;... " .. . - -
<br /> .. .
<br /> "G. REQUEST BY C. W. DAVIS F'OR REZONI NG LOTS I THROUGH 7', BLOCt< 5, TESHNER IS I
<br /> ADDI'TION,- BEING SOUTH SIDE OF 19TH AVENUE' BETWEEN WILLAMETTE AND OAt< STREETS,
<br /> FROM -R-I TO R-3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. - THE COMMITTEECONS'IDERED THE RE- I
<br /> QUEST BY C. W. DAVI S ,TO REZONE. THE ,ABOVE DESCRIBED ~REA ON WHICH THE 'PLANNI NG
<br /> COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION HAD BEEN ITO ALLOW THE REZONING OF' ONE LOT ONLY (LOT 7)
<br /> TO ALLOW F'O~ RESI.DENCE AND DOCTORI~ OF'F'ICE~ I'T WAS POI NTJ:D OUT THAT THI S PAR-
<br /> . TI CULAR" LOT WAS' TOO SMALL TO ALLOW F'OR NORMAL 'BUI LDI NG F'OR RESI DENTIAL- USE I
<br /> AND IN THE OPINION Of THE PLANNING COt-1MISSION THE COMBINATION RESIDE-NCE' AND I
<br /> DOCTOR'S OFF'ICE WOULD BE THE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS USE OF THE PROPERTY. THE COM- ,
<br /> I
<br /> MI T'TE"E RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. OF 'THE PLANNI NG COMMI SSI ON RECOMMENDATI ON T,O RE- i
<br /> ZONE .LO,T 7. ONL'~,BLOCK 5, ;TESH'NER'S ADDI TI ON,c S1 TUATED ON THE 'SOUTHEAST CORNER
<br /> OF' 19TH AVENUE AND WLLLAMETTE STREET~ TO ALLOW FOR RESIDENCE'AND'DOCTOR'S
<br /> OFFICE AND THAT REZONING OF THE: BAL'ANCE OF'- 'THE' AREA BE DENIED."
<br /> ;,~ , . .
<br /> IT WAS MOVED BY MRS. LAURIS SECONDED BY MR. LJNDEEN THAT THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE ADOPTED
<br /> REZONING ONE LOT ONLY (LOT 7) OF' BLOC~ 5, TESHNER'S ADDITION TO R-3 MULTIPLE FAMILY
<br /> RES I DENTI AL TO ALLOW 'COMBI NATIONr RES I DEN.cE AND DOCTOR'S OFFI CE.. MOTION CARRIED.-'
<br /> '. - . .' -
<br /> "2. 01 SCUSSI ON REGARDI NG RE~OOF'l NG OF' COMF'ORT STA.TlON AT: NORTHWEST. CORNER OF' 8TH A.VE- ,
<br /> ,
<br /> NUE AND OAK STREET - -THE COMMITTEE DROVE BY THE BUILDING AND IT WAS NOTED THAT
<br /> A TI LE ROOF' CUR'REN~LY COVERS THE BUI LDrNG. THE CITY ENGINEER EX'PLAINED' THAT THIS
<br /> ROOF" WAS LEAKI NG BADLY AND I'T WOULD 'BE 'NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE T! LE, REPLACE THE ,
<br /> SUB-ROOF" .AS WE.LL _AS SOME OF THE SUPPORTI NG MATERIALS BEFORE THE ROOF'. COULD BE RE- I
<br /> PAl RED. . THE' CI TY ENGI NEER RECOMMENDED- THAT THE REROOFI NGBE DONE' WI'TH A COMPOSI TI ON !
<br /> ,
<br /> MATER I AL AND THAT THE TI LENOT- BE 'REPLACED.' , THE' COMMI TTEE RECOMMENDED- THAT THE i
<br /> COMPOSI TI ON .ROOF',I NG' BE USED AND' THAT THE CI TY~ MANAGER 'BE' 'AUTH.ORI ZED TO' PROCEED
<br /> WI TH THE DETAI LS OF THEREROOFI NG'."" 1-. - .. > . - ! I
<br /> . I
<br /> : , . ~ . - . I
<br /> I TWAS' MOVED, BY MR. WATSON SECONDED BY: MRS'. L'AURI S THAT THE REPORT OF THE COMMI TTEE ,
<br /> BE APPROVED. ROLLCALL- VOTE. 'ALL, COUNC,I LMEN PRESENT -VOTl NG AYE, EXCEPT MR. LI NDEEN
<br /> ABSTAI NI NG, MOTl ON CARR;I ED. ;
<br /> .' ....
<br /> "3. DISCUSSION REGARDING PAVING OF CITY VIE~STREET ADJACENT TO PROPERTY OUTSIDE THE
<br /> CTTY LIMITS LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF 18TH AVENUE - IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT CITY :
<br /> VIEW PAVING WAS' NOW PROCEEDIWG AND AFTER SOME CONSIDERATION IT HAD BEEN DETERMINED I
<br /> IF' THE SMALL SECTI{)N OF THE STREET IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO I~TH,AvEWUE AND FRONT- e
<br /> ING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWES~ CORNER OF 18TH AVENUE AND C'TY VIEW STREET ,
<br /> ,
<br /> WERE NOT PAVED, THE COST TO THE CITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF' THIS SMALL SECTION WOULD
<br /> BE EXTREMELY HIGH. I TWAS THEREF'ORE SYGGESTED THAT; THI'S SECTION BE PAVED WI TH THE ,
<br /> REST OF' CITY VIEW STREET. THE COMMITTEE DISCUSSED THE SUGGESTION AND REC{)MMENDED
<br /> THAT THE SMALL SECTION OF CITY VIEW STREET ABUTTING UPON PROPERTY NOT IN THE CITY
<br /> LIMITS'SE PAVED AT CITY EXPENSE~ITH TH~ STIPUlATIO~ THAT WHEN THE 'PROPERTY APPLIES
<br /> fORANNEXATI ON, AS A PRECEDENT TO ANNEX~TION A CONTRACT BE ENTERED INTO WITH THE
<br /> PROPERTY HOLDER REQUIRING THE ASSESSMENT fOR STREET PAVING AND SEWER CONNECTION
<br /> BE PAID UPON ANNEXATION."
<br /> ,
<br /> , I
<br /> IT WAS MOVED BY MR. WATSON SECONDED BY MR. HARTMAN THAT THE REPORT Of THE COMMITTEE I
<br /> BE APPROVED. ROLLCA'LL VOTE. ALL COUNCILMEN PRESENT' VOTING AYE, MOTION CARRIED. i
<br /> ~ . ,
<br /> . .
<br /> "4. PETITION FOR CURB SIDEWALK' ON THE-EAST SIDE OF' WILLAMETTE TREET 'BETWEEN24TH AVE-
<br /> NUE AND 24TH PLACE -' TWAS EXPLAINE'D THAT A PETITION HAD BEEN RECEIVEDF.ROM THREE ! I
<br /> PROPERTY HOLDERS REQUESTING THAT SIDEWALKS BE INSTALLED AT THE CURB LINE ON THE
<br /> EAST SIDE OF' WI'LLAMETTE STREET BETWEEN 24TH AVENUE' AND' 24TH 'PLACE:. THE PETI TI ONERS ,
<br /> INDICATED THAT .IF THE SIDEWA~K IS MOVED BACK, THE 'PETITIONERSt FRONT'VARDS W6ULD I
<br /> BE RAI~ED' SO HIGH THAT tT WILL~EQUIRE AN ~XCESSIVE AMOUNT OF ~I.LL IN' BOTH THE YARDS
<br /> AND THE PARKWAY AREAS, AND THAT ITWII:L RESULT IN 'NARROW F'RONT YAROS WHICH WILL BE
<br /> UNATTRACTIVE AND DECREASE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES. ,.IT WAS ALSO STATED IN THE
<br /> PETITION THAT A CURB SIDEWALK WOULD CONF'ORM TO THE BLOCK IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH
<br /> . WHERE S I DEWA-LKS ARE LOCATED ADJACE NT TO -THE 'CURB. - : '. .. .
<br /> !
<br /> -;- e
<br /> THE COMMITTEE INDICATED THEY THOUGHT THAT THE I NSTALLATION.OF CURB SIDEWALKS WOULD
<br /> I
<br /> ~ I
<br />
|