|
<br />e
<br />
<br />4/27/59
<br />
<br />~..:n'
<br />
<br />'/1
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />--~~
<br />- ~ -- -- .-- ---" --- . - -- -- - ~
<br />- - - -- - -- - - -'.. -:
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />00
<br />,:'Jt
<br />~,
<br />'~
<br />CJ?
<br />C-C,
<br />ro
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />il
<br />
<br />i'(
<br />H
<br />~I
<br />H
<br />~I
<br />':1
<br />
<br />:\
<br />
<br />"
<br />,
<br />Ii
<br />:,
<br />
<br />II
<br />II
<br />::1
<br />;!
<br />
<br />~ i
<br />;1
<br />d
<br />I
<br />,I
<br />'I
<br />I,
<br />
<br />,
<br />I,
<br />H
<br />i
<br />'I
<br />
<br />'!
<br />"
<br />fi
<br />'.
<br />I
<br />
<br />"
<br />,I
<br />
<br />~1
<br />'I
<br />:1
<br />,(
<br />'I
<br />,
<br />
<br />':1
<br />,
<br />"
<br />':
<br />
<br />,1
<br />n
<br />11
<br />,I
<br />~I
<br />fl
<br />:!
<br />,j
<br />"I
<br />
<br />:1
<br />"
<br />
<br />;1
<br />2 :1
<br />'I
<br />I
<br />n
<br />'I
<br />'r
<br />~t
<br />~ I
<br />:/
<br />"
<br />.!
<br />~ ,I
<br />"
<br />',I
<br />'I
<br />II
<br />1
<br />
<br />.,
<br />"
<br />;~1'
<br />;1
<br />~ !
<br />J
<br />,
<br />I
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />tl
<br />:1
<br />:!
<br />,\
<br />~ I
<br />I
<br />;,
<br />,
<br />;,
<br />'I
<br />i
<br />:i
<br />"
<br />I,
<br />3 ..
<br />
<br />Ii
<br />II
<br />'!
<br />!j
<br />~I
<br />'I
<br />11
<br />f!
<br />
<br />i,i
<br />~ < !
<br />;j
<br />
<br />IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST fOR THESE PROJECTS fOR
<br />1959-60 AND 1960-61 WAS $254,216.00 WHICH IT WAS ESTIMATED THAT
<br />$16,000.00 COULD BE RECOVERED fROM PARK-AIRE LAND SALES, fOR A NET
<br />COST Of $238,216.00.
<br />
<br />THE REPORT LIKEWISE STATED THAT THE 1ST TO 4TH CONNECTOR WAS LEfT
<br />OUT SINCE IT APPEARS A NORTH BANK ROAD WOULD BE PARALLEL TO AND SERVE
<br />THE SAME PROJECT. IT WAS LIKEWISE STATED THAT THOUGHT SHOULD BE GIVEN
<br />TO THE EXTENSION OF THE COUNTY'S PERIPHERAL ROAD SYSTEM AND THAT ROAD
<br />CONSTRUCTION THROUGHOUT THE SOUTHWEST PART Of THE CITY SHOULD BE WITH-
<br />HELD UNTIL A MUTUAL PERIPHERAL ROAD SYSTEM BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND CITY
<br />COULD BE WORKED OUT.
<br />
<br />IN CONNECTION WITH THIS, IT WAS RECOMMEN'DED THAT THE EXISTING POLICY
<br />Of ASSESSMENT AND CITY PARTICIPATION IN COST OF THE CROSSTOWN STREET
<br />PROGRAM BE REVIEWED BEfORE ANOTHER CROSSTOWN STREET PROGRAM IS BROUGHT
<br />fORWARD, AND IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKE SUCH
<br />A STUDY.
<br />
<br />IT WAS fURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT THE COUNCIL MEET WITH REPRESENTATIVES
<br />OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE 6TH AND 7TH AVENUE TRAfFIC COMMITTEE
<br />REPRESENTATIVES ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSED.
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR. CHATT THAT ITEM IE Of THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE
<br />APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED.
<br />
<br />r. RESOLUTION AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING ACQUISITION Of PROPERTY ALONG
<br />NORTHEASTERLY BANK Of THE WILLAMETTE RIVER UPSTREAM FROM THE FERRY STREET
<br />BRIDGE DESIGNATED AS PATTERSON ISLAND PARK - A PLANNING COMMISSION RECOM-
<br />MENDATION AND RESOLUTION WERE READ IN WHICH THE CITY WAS URGED TO ACQUIRE
<br />PROPERTY IN THE OWNERSHIP OF THE EUGENE SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY fOR EVENTUAL
<br />PARK PURPOSES.
<br />
<br />FOLLOWING THIS SOME CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION WAS GIVEN ON THE MATTER Of
<br />JOINT PARTICIPATION AND COOPERATION WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AS
<br />WELL AS THE CITY'S ABILITY TO PAY FOR PROPERTY AND MAINTENANCE OF SUCH
<br />A PARK, AND IN LIGHT Of ITS OTHER PROBLEMS, ESPECIALLY SEWERS. IT WAS
<br />RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY Of EUGENE AGREE TO COOPERATE WITH OTHER AGENCIES
<br />ON THE ACQUISITION OF THE PATTERSON ISLAND PARK LOCATED EASTERLY fROM THE
<br />FERRY STREET BRIDGE~ MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. LINDEEN ABSTAINING.'
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR. MOLHOLM THAT ITEM If. OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT
<br />BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED, MR. LINDEEN VOTING NAY.
<br />
<br />2. REQUEST BY NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES AND DISCUSSION RE-
<br />GARDING NEW FRANCHISE fOR NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS COMPANY - MR. C. I. LANDSVERK
<br />APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TO R~QUEST A CHANGE IN THE EXISTING fRANCHISE.
<br />HE INDICATED THAT THE NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS COMPANY PURCHASED THE GAS UTILITY
<br />ABOUT ONE YEAR AGO AND NOW PROPOSES TO EXTEND A NATURAL GAS LINE TO THIS AREA.
<br />HE INDICATED THE EXISTING fRANCHISE, WHICH HAS SEVEN MORE YEARS TO RUN, CALLS
<br />FOR A FRANCHISE PAYMENT OF ONE-HALf Of 1% IN THE fIRST fIVE YEARS, 1% IN mHE
<br />SECOND riVE YEARS, AND 2% IN THE THIRD FIVE YEARS, AND THAT THE CITY IS NOW
<br />IN THE SECOND PHASE. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ADVENT OF NATURAL GAS TO THE
<br />AREA IS EXPECTED TO EXPAND INDUSTRY AND THAT THE GAS COMPANY WILL BE REQUIRED
<br />TO PURCHASE A GIVEN BLOCK Of GAS AND, IN TURN, WOULD SELL EXCESS AND INTER-
<br />RUPTIBLE GAS AT A LOW RATE TO INDUSTRY. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE
<br />NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS COMPANY IS NOW ASKING THAT THE fRANCHISE fEE BE INCREASED
<br />TO 2% BUT WITH THE EXCLUSION OF INTERRUPTIBLE INDUSTRIAL GAS SUPPLY fROM THE
<br />FRANCHISE fEE. IT WAS LIKEWISE STATED THAT THIS IS THE TYPE OF fRANCHISE
<br />WHICH THEY HAVE IN MOST CITIES WHERE THEY HAVE INDUSTRIAL ACCOUNTS.
<br />
<br />IN THE DISCUSSION WHICH fOLLOWED, IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT A 20-YEAR fRANCHISE
<br />MIGHT BE ENTERED INTO SUBJECT TO REVIEW EACH FIVE YEARS, ESPECIALLY SO FAR
<br />AS THE INTERRUPTIBLE INDUSTRIAL GAS SERVICE IS CONCERNED. THE NORTHWEST GAS
<br />_ REPRESENTATIVE STATED IT IS VERY DESIRABLE FROM THEIR STANDPOINT TO HAVE A
<br />20-YEAR fRANCHISE SINCE IT MAKES IT MUCH EASIER FOR THEM TO BORROW fUNDS
<br />fOR CONSTRUCTION AND EXPANSION PURPOSES. IT WAS RECOMMENDED THIS ITEM BE
<br />HELD OVER fOR fURTHER STUDY.
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR. MOLHOLM THAT ITEM 2 Of THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE
<br />APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED.
<br />
<br />3. BOARD Of ApPEALS REPORT - APRIL 8j 1959
<br />A. REQUEST BY JOHN R. AND ELIZABETH J. MCCULLOCH J 2550 HILLSIDE DRIVE,
<br />fOR VARIANCE FROM 20' SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT CARPORT - IT WAS STATED
<br />THESE PROPERTY OWNERS WISH TO CONSTRUCT A CARPORT 5' FROM THE FRONT
<br />PROPERTY LINE AND THAT THIS MATTER HAD BEEN BEfORE THE BOARD OF ApPEALS
<br />AND-HAD BEEN RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
<br />Of THE REQUEST INDICATED ABOVE.
<br />
<br />- - .--
<br />- ~---- --
<br />
<br />
<br />II
<br />
<br />I
<br />I
<br />"
<br />1
<br />Ii
<br />II
<br />'I
<br />II
<br />I!
<br />'I
<br />'I
<br />I,
<br />'I
<br />I,
<br />II
<br />i'
<br />il
<br />
<br />:,
<br />I'
<br />"
<br />!
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />
<br />!!
<br />Ii
<br />\l
<br />:1
<br />Ii
<br />"
<br />It
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />
<br />II
<br />
<br />'I
<br />'I
<br />I,
<br />II
<br />II
<br />I
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />:1
<br />II
<br />I
<br />
<br />i
<br />II
<br />1\
<br />,
<br />1
<br />I
<br />II
<br />'I
<br />
<br />ii
<br />!I
<br />I;
<br />il
<br />II
<br />II
<br />il
<br />!/
<br />
<br />I.
<br />:1
<br />I,
<br />II
<br />Ii
<br />jl
<br />I'
<br />Ii
<br />I:
<br />,I
<br />II
<br />I
<br />I
<br />Ii
<br />II
<br />II
<br />!,
<br />\I
<br />:1
<br />'I
<br />'I
<br />I,
<br />II
<br />Ii
<br />!i
<br />,I
<br />Ii
<br />I:
<br />II
<br />II
<br />I.
<br />I'
<br />II
<br />
<br />"
<br />'I
<br />"
<br />:i
<br />':~
<br />
|