12/23/1957 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r 62 e 12/23/57 .-:-~-~-;-;:--=~--:--:::-:::-..~ :--==--=---_~-;;-:---______:__.~..- - --=~- ~--~-=-__...-~- ~----_._- . - --7_--:-:---- _ --:..~~_- ---- -c .. , .. -, -" -- - - .. , .. , - - -, - --.* , - --- -- AN I~EA WASVQICED THAT S!DEWALKS ADJACENT TO THE CURB WERE B~TTER LOCATED SINC~ I , I IT ALLOWED PEDESTRIANS TO ALIGHT FROM AND GET INTn AUTOMOBILES WITHOUT THE NECES- I I SITY OF GETTING INTO WET GRASS OR MUD. I TWAS AL,SO INDICATED THAT THIS WAS A II QUESTIONABLE SITUATION FOR LOCATI~G SIDEWA~KS AT THE CURB SINCE WALKS HAD BEEN I I BUlL T IN A GOOD PORTION OF THIS AREA SET BACK FROM THE CURB. FOLLOWING THIS DIS- I CUSS I Ol':l IT'WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE PETITION FOR THE, INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS I I AT THE CURB IN THE AREA ABOVE SPECIFIED BE DENIED. I , I 3. REQUEST FOR STUDY BY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CURB SIDEWALKS I IN NEWLY PLATTED AREAS - j FOLLOWING THE DISCUSSION ON THE PETITION FOR CURB SIDEWALKS IN THE AREA OF 32ND t . . . - ., . I AVENUE, ~ARRIS.SrREET,AND KNOB COURT, IT WAS MOVED BY MR. BRIGGS SECONDED BY MRS. I LAURIS THAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKE A STUDY ASTO THE DESIRABILITY OR NON-DESIRABILITY OF PERMITTING CURB SIDEWALKS IN NEWLY PLATTED I AREAS. MOTION CARRIED. t 4. REQUEST FOR SEGREGATION,OF SEWER ASSESSMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCAiEri ON THE EAST SIDE ,) OF MONROE STREET BETWEEN 26TH AND 27TH AVENUES - IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE HALF e BLOCK ON THE EAST SIDE OF MONROE STREET BETWEEN ~6TH AND 27TH AVENUES HAD ORI~INALLY I BEEN PLATTED WITH THE LOTS FACING MONROE .STREET A~D THAT SINCE THIS PLATTING THE I I I PRPP~RTJES H~D BEEN SOLD OFF SO THAT EXISTtNG,HO~SES OR POTENTIAL H9USES,FACE ON I EITHER 26TH OR 27TH AVENUE. I I A SEWER LJNE WAS RECENTLY I INSTALLED IN THIS AREA AND. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY \ ABUTTIN~.MoNROE,Sr~EET"WHO FORMERLY O~NED A TOTAL or 270' ALON~ MONROE 'STREET. I , WITH 40' FRONTAGES ON 26TH AND 27TH AVENUES, HAD,R~QUESTED THAT HIS ASSE~~MENT BE SEGREGATED SINCE HE HAD RECENTLY SOLD OFF THE NORTH 135' OF HIS PROPERTY. THE TOTAL ASSESSMENT ON THE WHOLE PORTION WAS $379.71 WHICH wouLD MAKE THE ASSESSMENT . _ON TH~ TWO HALF P,ECES OF PR9PE~TY$!89.8~ AN~ $189.85 RESPECTIVE~Y. I THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING AS TO THE ADVISABILITY OF ALLOW- ING A SEGREGATION ON PROPERTY 401~135:' SINCE THE TOTAL AREA OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT EQUAL 6000 SQUARE FEET WHICH 'IS THE 'MINIMUM 'REQUIRED NOW BY THE ZONING CODE. I AFTER SOME DJSCUSSION ON THIS MATTER, THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT THE SEGRE- I GAT ION BE ALLOWED. I I ! I PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE I I I .,DISCUSSIPN REGARDING REMOVAL OF BUILDING LOCATED AT 648 GRANT STREET AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF SECTIONS 11.26 TO 11.29, INCLUSIVE, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF EUGENE - REP~ESENTATIVES OF THE COMMITTEE D.ROVE TO THE, ABOVE LOCATI~N, AND VIEWED THE BUILDING, AND THE O~N~R Of T~E PROP~RTY AS WELL AS THE OWNER OF ~HE BUILDING WAS. PRESEN:r Al THE MEETING AND SPOKE Hi THEIR O~N BEHALF. I I IN THE DISC~SSION Ir WAS EXPLAINE.D THAT THE BUIL~ING HAD..BEEN' SOLD WITH THE I THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE MOVED TO A NEW LOCATION NEf'R751 WEST 22ND AVENUE TO BE USED. FOR LIVING QUARTERS AND WHEN IT WAS DETERMINED THAT IT COULD NOT BE USED I FOR LIVING QUARTERS BECAUSE THE AREA IN WHICH IT WAS TO BE MOVED ALLOWED SINGLE I FAMILY RESIDENCES pN ONE LOT, THE PURCHASER THEN D,ECIDED HE WOULD USE T~E BUILD- I INGFOR,'A GARAGE STRUCTURE AT THE, ABOVE, ADDRE~S AND THAT WITH CERTAIN MODI FICA- I I T IONS AND R~PA I RS TO THE BU I LD I NG IT COUL_D, BE SOUSED PROV I 0 I NG IT MET THE RE- I QUIREMENTS Of THE BUILDING, ELECTRICAL, PLUMB,ING AND ZONING CODES Of THE CITY. ,l THE RE!-OCA,T ION OF THE BU I LD I N~ WAS CONTRACTED FOR BUT BECAUSE OF THE PA V I NG ?F 18TH AVENU~,WEST OF CHAMBERS STREET AND ALSO BECAUSE THE CONTRACTING HOUSE MoVER WAS. NOT. LICENSED BY THE CITY T,HE ACTUAL MOV I NG W_AS NOT ACCOMPL 15HED,ljlUT THE BJ.lJ-"DINGOWNER PROPOSES TO ACCOMP/.ISH THEMOVING, UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY ORDIN~NCE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. e 1 AFTER CONS I DERABLE 0 I scuss I ON ON THE REQU I REMENTS OF THE VAR 10US ORD I NANCE:~ AN 0 .CODES .pl/VOLVED THE. COMMITTEE RECpMMENDED THAT THE. CONDEMNATION 'SECTI?N OF ~HE " j CITY CODE,'~E ENFOR~ED AfTER ,90 DAY~" IT-BEING T~~ INTENT TO ALLOW THE BUILDING j OWNER A 90-DAY P~RIOD iN'~HICH TO MOYE THE BUILDING OR TO TEAR IT, DOWN. I 2. REPORT ~F LETTERRE~EIVE~ FROM TH~ OREGON LIQUOR CO~~ROL COMMI~SION REGARDI~G I THE DUT,CH MILL' TAVERN' - THE CITY MANAGER READ A LETTER FRpM TH,E OREGO,N LIQUOR I CONTROL, C.OMM IS,S ION, IN WH I CH IT WAS STATED THAT THE COM~ISSION HAS NOTIFIED - ,. . , . '. . I THE L I CE,NSE;E, BEI~NG THE DUTCH MILL, LOC~TED AT 42 WEST 8TH AVENUE, T~AT A RE- NEWAL OF. THE I:R L I CE;N_SE. PRI V I LEG,E.S WI LL NO.T BE F.ORTHCOM I NG WI T,H THE BEG I NN I NG I OF THE NEW CALENDAR YEAR ('958). . ' 1 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 2 I I ' , I. DiSCI)SSION REGARD.INGltRAILER ORDINANCE: - SOM,ED.SclisSION WAS GIVEN TO-,THERE- QUIREMEN,TS .oF THE TRAILER ORDINANC,E WH,ICH ORIGiNAL.Ly'WAS TO BE EFFECT;'VE ON I J UL Y i ~ .1957 AND WHI cli .EFFECT I VE DATE WAS THEN EXTENDE.o TO JANUARV' I, 1958. THE THOUGHT ,WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE THAT THE ORDINANCE MIG,HT B~ EF-' FECT I VE FOR ANY .NEW ~.RA I LERS DES I RING, TO LOCATE IN THE CITY BUT NOT TO BE . . j. ; . RETROACTIV~ FOR TRAILER~~XISTING IN THE CITY AT THIS TIME. THIS WOULD ALLOW 1 PEOPLE WHO HAVE A~ IN~ESTMENT IN THEIR TRAILERS TO CONTINUE TO USE SUCH TRAILERS I .' .. - . . AND 'FAC~LITIES NECESSARY TO SUCH TRAILERS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE EXISTING , . . ' .. ..., TRAILER ON THEIR PROPERTY MIGHT FOR ANY REASON ~E ~OVED. THE BAS J.C THOUGHT ~ BEHIND THIS WAS THAT THE CITY HAD ALLOWED TRAILERS TO EXIST AND THAT SUCH - I TRAILERS SHOULD BE TREATED AS NON-CONFORMING USERS. ~J I Ii