|
<br />~ 450
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />2/24/59
<br />
<br />~;~_~-_----.::;:::-=~~~-~~----:.-_----:-=-:~--=--;:::--=-=--=-~_--_--;-:-:---::--=.,-_ ~-:=-7~:_~~ -- ~-- --- ---------
<br />
<br />---_.....--- . -- ----
<br />- --- '.,f -.--. --- ---- - -~-..
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED ~Y.MRS. ~~URIS ~~C9NDED Br M~. ,WILSON THAT ITEM 2 Of" THE REPO~T.Of" THE COMMITTEE
<br />BE APPROYED.: MOTlpN C~RRIED. " ' , ' "
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />"
<br />3. REQUEST f"OR EXTENSION Of" SEWER SYSTEM BETWEEN 30TH AND 31ST AVENUES f"OR LOT 2,
<br />BLOCK 4, AMENDED PLAT OF ROSEDALE - A PETITION SIGNED BY OWNERS Of" 100% Of" PRO-
<br />PERTY, TO BE ASSESSED REQUESTING THAT A SANITARY SEWER BE INSTALLED ON THE EXTEN-
<br />SION Of" CHARNEL TON' STREET' SOUTH OF 30TH AVENUE WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE. .
<br />IT WAS EXPLAINED'THAT THIS PARTICULAR SEW'ER SYSTEM WO'ULD BE AN EXTENSI()N' Of" THE
<br />CHARNELTON STREET SYSTEM'WHICH WAS DESIGNED f"OR AND CAN READILY HANDLE SUCH AN
<br />1- ., I _. _ "
<br />EXTENS I ON. THE PROPOSED SEWER WOULD SERVE A CUL-DE-SAC CON'TA I N I NG S 1',( LOTS.
<br />. B~SEi; ON' T'HE "R'E:POR'''' THE COMM I TrEE RECOMMENDED THAT" THE:' SEWER - SYSTEt.t BE. APPROVED
<br />AND THAT THE' NECESSARY ORDINANCES INITIATING THE PROJECT BE PASSED.
<br />, .
<br />
<br />IT WA,S MOVED BY M,R~. " Lf'UR! S '~S~CONDED' BY MR': w:; L.~ON: T~~T'" ITEM, 3" 9'r,~ THE REPORT 'Of"- THE COMM I TTEE
<br />BE APPROVED. MOT!9N,~ARR'E,I?~. .' t _"" ,
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />4. RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING BUDGETING FUNDS f"OR UNANTICIPATED PROPERTY ACQUISITION -
<br />IT WAS INDICATED THAT THE COMMON COUNCIL AT THEIR MEETING ON JANUARY 12, 1959 HAD
<br />ADOPTED A COMM I TTEE Of". :THE: WHOLE: REPORT CONCERN I NG THE POSS'; i31 LI T'Y Of" BUDGET'j NG "
<br />f"UNDS f"OR UNANTICIPATED PROPERTY ACQUISITION. THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT THIS
<br />ACTION BE REf"ERRED TO THE BUDGET COMMITTEE.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />-j. ~.. - ,
<br />IT WAS MOVED BY MRS. LAU~I~ ~E~9ND~~ BY MR. MOL~OLM,JHAT. IJEM 4 Of" THE REPORT Of" THE COM~ITTE~
<br />BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED.
<br />
<br />"
<br />5. DISCUSSION REGARDING STUDY Of" PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGULATING STORAGE,Of" JUNK AND,
<br />OTHER ITEMS ON PROPERTY - IN THIS INSTANCE IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY
<br />HAD NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBILITIES Of" DEVELOPING AN:
<br />ORDINANCE REQUIRING INDIVIDUALS WHO STORE JUNK OR OTHER ITEMS ON THEIR PROPERTY
<br />TO CLEAN UP THEIR PROPERTY. DURING THE DISCUSSION IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT IN
<br />ADDITlON'TO TH'E STUDY O'f"" ANORDINANCE THE'MAYOR P'R'OCLAIM A"'CIT"Y BE'A'UTIf"i'CATION
<br />PEa~OD HAVING IN MIND THAT THIS IS THE OREGON CENTENNIAL YEAR ~ND THE CITY WILL
<br />HAVE A NUM'BE~ OF G,UESTS'" VISITORS AND OTHE~RS W,HO, WILL BE~ COMING THROUGH'THE CITY
<br />AND THAT THIS PROGRAM BE COORDINATED WITH THOSE Of" OTHER CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS.
<br />A SUGGESTEDS'LOGAN WA'S GIVEN - "SHINE IN '59'11'.: '
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED BY MRS. LAURi.S SECONDED BY 'MR. MOLHOLM' 'THAT ITEM 5 'Of" 'THE REPORT Of" THE 'CoM-
<br />M I TTEE BE APP"ROV,ED . MOT-I,9N ,CARR lED.
<br />
<br />6. DISCUSSION OF CROSS TOWN" STREET PROGRAM - THE CITY MANAGER EXPLAINED. THAT THE
<br />CITY OF EUGENE .I S NOW I NTHE EIGHTH YEAR o'r '~:. TEN .YEAR C'ROSS TO~IN STREE:TPRO-
<br />. ~. . . ~.~, . . ... -. - ~
<br />GRAM, AND THAT THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY $4.19,000 WORTH Of" JOBS TO BE, COMPLETED
<br />BASED ON THE ORIGINAL PROGRAM BUT WITH' ONLY APPROXIMATELY $250,000 'ANTJ'CIPATED
<br />INCOME TO 00 SUCH WORK. HE f"URTHER STATED THAT SOME Of". THE RECOMMENDATIONS
<br />- '. ... .
<br />MADE, ,F'OR THE ,TEN YEAR PR9GRAM HAVE BEEN CONTROVERS I AL AND I N SOME CASES I TWAS
<br />QUESil~NE~ ~H~THER ~UC~ PROJECT~ ARE ~OW NEEDED. THE, P~OGRAMS WHICH HAD, NOT.
<br />BEEN COMPLETED AS OF TH 1ST I'ME WERE THEN EXPLA I NED I N', GENERAL. THESE INCLUDE':
<br />.' - . ..
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />A. 1ST TO 4TH CONNECTOR - OR IG I NA,U. Y EST IMATE~ TO CO,ST $118',000 WH I,CH COST
<br />INCLUDED THE PURCHASE OF RIGHTS-Of"-WAY f"ROM THE RAILROAD WITH AN ASSESS-
<br />. . - .' -
<br />MENT TO THE RAILROAD FOR THE COST Of" THE STREET PAVING. 'T WAS EXPLAINED
<br />-' . .
<br />THAT THE RAILROAD HAS BEEN APPROACHED. WITH THE IDEA THAT SUCH A STREET
<br />WOULD BE Of" BENEf"IT TO PROPERTY IN THEIR OWNERSHIP AND THAT THE RAILROAD
<br />... , . . _. ,..... _. .. .. I...
<br />HAD OF~EREp TO DEpIC~~~ ~HEPRO~ERJY BUT WITH THEU~~~RSTANDING ~HAT,,~O
<br />A~SES.SMENT WOULD ~BE MADE. SOME DISCUSSION, WAS .HA,D A,S TO WHETHER..IT ,WOULD,
<br />BE f>OSSIBLE TO DEVELOP A LOW ,STAN~ARD,ST"REET THROUGH THI,S A~EA"A~, A
<br />POSSIBLE MEANS OF DRAWING SOME Of" THE TRAFFIC OFf" 6TH AND 7TH AVENUES
<br />AND PROVIDING ACCESS f"ROM RIVER ROAD TO THE"fERRY STREET BRIDGE. fT' WOULD
<br />ALSO SERVE AS A MEANS OF DISCOURAGING TRAFFIC THROUGH SKINNERS BUTTE PARK.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />B. II'TH' Av'ENUE' WIDENING f"ROM WILLAMETTE STR"EET TO. KINCAID STREET -' IN THIS
<br />INSTANCE THE WIDENING Of" 11TH AVENUE FROM WILLAMETTE TO KJNCAIOSTREET
<br />WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE ORIGINAL COMMITTEE TO BE 56' IN WIDTH WITH A 5'
<br />SIDEWALK ON BOTH SIDES Of" THE STREET WHICH WOULD USE THE ENTIRE ,RIGHT-
<br />OF~WAY-Of" 66'. ":THIS WI~ENI'NG P~OJECT WOULD'REQUIR'E.~THROUGHOUT,MOST:.':Of"
<br />ITS LENGTH THAT THE WHOLE STREET BE REPAVED AND THAT THE ~IDEWALKS BE~
<br />RECONSTRUCTED. THE QU~STION Of" ,TRE.E~, IN THE AR,EA,:AND POT:.ENTIA.L REPLANT-
<br />ING OF, TRE,ES UNDER A PRO~RAM WHI:CH MIGHT B.~, WORKED OUT WAS BROU~~iT- UP.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />~
<br />
|