|
<br />r-394
<br />e
<br />
<br />12/22/58 ,__ __ _
<br />- - - - - - _. -- .... - -~ ~-'
<br />
<br />.~ - -'---..- - -". --- - -- -~ ----. -- ---+ -----.- -_..~ --,- .. -- +._--~- -----.+ ---
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />FOLLOWING THIS GENERAL DISCUSSION, IT WAS RECOI4MENDEDTHAT THE PARKING BE REMDVED I
<br />FRDM BOTH SIDES Of 6TH AND 7TH AVENUES f~O~ GARfIEL~ TO HIG~ STREET. ,MOTION CAR-
<br />RIED WITH MR. LiNDEEN VOTING NAY. '
<br />
<br />I PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ,'" '
<br />I. BDARD Of ApPEALS REPDRT Of DECEMBER 10, 1958:' ,
<br />A. REQUEST fOR VARIANCE fOR OVERSIZE SIGN, EVANGELISTIC CHURCH, 2480 HILYARD'
<br />STREET - I,TDWAS EXPLA I NED THAT PASTOR JOE YATES Of THE EVANGEL I ST I C CHURCH
<br />2480 HILYARD STREET, HAD REQUESTED THEY BE ALLOWED A VARIANCE fROM THE SIGN
<br />CODE WHICH PERMITS DNLY A 12 SQUARE fOOT SIGN TO ALLOW THEM TO CONSTRUCT A
<br />SIGN' AND A CROSS WH I CH WOUL'D BE A TOTAL Of 30.08 SQUA'R,E fEET., Tti I S, 'I TEM H,AD
<br />BEEN TO THE BOARD Of ApPEALS AND HAD BEEN RECOMMENDED fOR DEN'I AL BY'THAT
<br />BOARD. THE COMM,ITTEE D,ISCUSSED THE REQUEST AND VIEWED 'A SKET,CH Of THE PRO-,
<br />POSED SIGN AND ON MDTIO'N RECOMMENDED THAT THE: ACTioN Of THE BOARD Of ApPE'ALS
<br />IN DENYIN~ THE REQUESTSE UPHELD~
<br />
<br />. - - ~ . - . - . . . . ~ . - . . . - . - - . - . .
<br />
<br />B. REQUEST fOR S,EYSAC'K VARTANCE fOR CARPORT BY PAut'BRABHAM ,,26o.8'AGATE'STREET '-. _
<br />I T WAS .I N,D I CATED THAT MR. ,BRABHAM HAD REQUESTED HE BE AI,.LD'WED TO. CONSTfWCT '
<br />A CARP'O'RT ,WI TH' LESS T'HAN T'HE REQUJ RED SETBACK fROM HIS NORTH PROPE'RTY LI NE;
<br />AT THIS (OCATION THE ACCESS STREET I~ ONLY 20 fEET IN WIDTH~ AN~IT IS
<br />POSSIBLE 'THAT A'r SDME 'rIME I,N THE fUTURE'lT MIGHt' BE PUTTHR9,UGH, TO NIXPN,
<br />STREET. THE BOARD o.f ApPEALS RECOMMENDED THE REQUESTED VAR.lANCE 'BE ALLOWED
<br />PROVIDING MR. BRABHAM INDICATE THAT If THE STRtET WERE EVER PUT 'tHRDUGH, _
<br />THE CARPORT WOULD BE REMOVED AT NO EXPENSE TO THE CITY. A LETTER TO THIS I
<br />EffECT WAS 'RECE'I VtD f_ROM 'MR.:_'BR,ABHAM,A'NDTHE 'CO,MMITTE,E' "RECDMMENDED ,THAT ,THE,
<br />VARIANCE BE ALLOWED WITH,THE'STlPULATION THAT,rf THE CONNECTING STREET '/'S --
<br />PUT THRDUGH, 'THE CARPORT WOULD BE REMOVED WITHOUT 'COST TO' 'T,HE CITY. ' ..
<br />
<br />. . ..
<br />
<br />2. CONSIDERATION o.f STATE HI'GHWAY REQUEST fOR RIGH'T-Of-WAY :fOR :NEW HIGHWAY 99 A'T
<br />JUDK INS' Po. INT AND THE HEADWATERS Of THE '141 LLRACE -' I TWAS EXPLA rNED THAT' THE"
<br />OREGDN STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT HAD REQUESTED THAT A QUITCLAIt!t DEED BE EXECUTED
<br />BY THE' CITY Of EUGENEWHIC'HWOULD RELrNQUISHANY RIGHT THE 'CITY HAS TO.: PROPERTY:
<br />. . - . - . - .. ~ .
<br />LOCATED AT THE HEADWATERS Of THE MILLRACE DNTHE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF THE'WILLA-
<br />, ' '
<br />METTE RIVER. THE REQUEST WAS SUBMITTED BECAUSE THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY 99 BRIDGE
<br />IS TO BE LOCATED IN THIS AREA AN~ THE RIGHT~Of-WAY IS NECESSARY FDR THE FDUNDA-
<br />T IDNS OF THE PROPOSED'BR lOGE. ' IT' WAS--'RECo.MMENDED THAT 'THE, ' PROPER CITY :~FFI C I ALS
<br />BE AUTHO,R I ZED TO EXECUTE A Qu rrCLA 1M DEED' ON TH I S PRDPERTY AT 'TH,E HEADW~TERSOF
<br />THE MILLRACE AS 'REQUESTED.
<br />, "
<br />
<br />f"')
<br />3. DISCUSSION Df REQUEST Of OREGON STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION FOR PURCHASE OF PRO-
<br />PERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE WILLAMETTE RIVER 'THRo.UGHAN AREA IN THE OWNERSHIP
<br />Of THE CITY AND RESERVED fOR PARK PURPOSES - IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE HIGHWAY
<br />DEPARTMENT WISHES TO PURCHASE 6.05 ACRES Of PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE DF THE I
<br />WILLAMETTE RIVER IN AN AREA NDW OWNED BY ,THE CITY Of EUGENE WHICKHAS BEEN RE- ,-
<br />SERVED fOR PARK, PURPOSES. ' THE AREA WHI CH THEY REQUEST . TO PURCHASE B I SECTS ' : '
<br />PRDPERTY OWNED BY THE' CITY AND AESERVED fOR PARK P'URPOSESAND' nit SPEC IF IC ,PR I CE
<br />'. '
<br />INDICATED BY THE HIGHWAY COMMISSION IS $4025. ' IT WAS ..NDICATED THAT THE HIGHWAY __
<br />COMM I SS I'ON ,HAS STATED, ALTHOUGH IT IS 'NOT I NWR I T lNG, THA!f THEY WDULDAGREE 'TO I
<br />PROVIDE ~WO ACCESS AREAS FROM ONE SIDE Of THE HIGHWAY TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
<br />HIGHWAY, DNE ~LONG THE BANK OF THE ~IVER ON THE NORTH SIDE, ~ND A SECONDAPPROX~-
<br />MATEL Y 90.0 fEET NO~TH OF1:HE R I VE,R AT 'TH~ NORTH EN~' OF THE 'CITY OWNERSHIP. OVER-
<br />HEAD 'CLEARANCE I N BOTH CASES Wo.ULD BE APPRDX IMATEL Y 24 FEET,"FOL.:LOWI NG 'SOME ,
<br />DISCUSSrON IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE PROPER CITY OFrlCIALS BE AUTHDRIZE~ T~'
<br />SIGN THE 0~TI6NREQUESTEC5 BY THE STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT SUBJECT TO ACCESS 'FROM
<br />o.NE SIDE OF THE PARK AREA TO THE o.THER S fOE OF THE 'PARK AREA BECA13SEOf' THE
<br />B I SECT I NG Of THE PARK PRo.PERTY'-" ", _
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR~ MCGAFFEY THAT ITHE REPORT Of THE COMMITTEE DF THE
<br />WHOLE BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. -, .
<br />
<br />) IT WAS MDVED 'BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR.' MCGAFFEY 'THAT THE' REPORT OF nit" PU~UCWORKS COM-
<br />I ,14 I TTEE BE APPROVED.: MOT I ON C~RR I,ED. ' - , ..
<br />
<br />I I TWAS MOVED BY MR. SHE'ARER SECONDED BY MR. HARTMAN' THAT THE "REPORT. 'o.f THE PUBL I C SAFETY Co.M-
<br />MITTEE BE APPROVED.
<br />I
<br />A NUMBER OF C fT I ZENS AND ATTo.RNEYS FOR. I NTERESTED PART I ES,OWNERS OF PROPERTY AND 'BUS I NESS !
<br />ESTABLISHMENTS ALDNG 6TH AND 7TH AVENUES SPOKE; THE VARIOUS PEDPlE~HO SPOKE INDICATED THAT THE '
<br />REMOVAL Of PARKING :FROM 6T~ AND7:r'H- AVENUES AS 'PROPOSED :WOUlD BE .vERY DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR BUSINESSES, !
<br />THAT THE CLOSING OF THESE STREETS WAS' AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ACTlo.N, THAT ,SOME BUSINESSES ESPECIALL~
<br />THE SMALLER ONES Wo.ULD BE PUT DUT OF 'BUSINESS, THAT 'PRo.PERTY VALUES WOULD BE 'RUINED, THAT THE CITY WAS I -
<br />ACTING ON BAD INFORMATION AND THAT THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT IS NOT NOW ENVISIONING THE REMOVAL Of PARK- l-
<br />ING FROM 6TH AND 7TH AVENUES, THAT THE o.PENING OF THE fREEWAY NOW SCHEDULED FOR COMPLETION IN 18 TO 24 I
<br />MDNTHS WOULD REMOVE ,30 TO 40% OF THE TRAFFIC FROM 6TH AND '7TH AVENUES, ,THAT THREE LANES o.F TRAFFIC WOULD -
<br />MAKE IT EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS feR PEOPLE TO GET INTO PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS, THAT ~HE REMOVAL OF PARKING WOULD
<br />ADD ANDTHER REASON FDR PEOPLE TO Go. o.UTSIDE THE C~TY TO ,DO BUSINESS 'AND Fo.RBUSINESSES TO. RELOCATE
<br />OUTSIDE THE CITY, !HAT THE STREETS WITH THREE LANtS WOULD PRESENT ,PRDBLEMS I~THE DISTRIBUTION OF
<br />TRAFFIC FOR THOSE WI SH I NG 'TO TURN TO. THER I GHTOR LEFT; 'THAT 'IF PARKING IS REMOVED 'AND PROPERTY VALUES
<br />ARE DIMINISHED OR CONFIS~ATED fN ~HE PUBLIC INTEREST AND CO~VENIEN~E T~E ~OUNCIL 'SHOULD TAKE ACTION
<br />TO REPAY PROPERTY HOLDERS AND, BUSINESSES FOR SUCH LOSS, THAT THERE ARE UNDOUBTEDLY DTHER WAYS WHICH ~
<br />
<br />I
<br />I
<br />
<br />~i II
<br />
|