07/27/1959 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ri26 e 7/27/59 ---~~---- --- --~_._-- -- . I: II [I ~-'- 'I I THIS MATTER HAS BEEN OBVIOUSLY DISCRIMI~ATED AGAINST AS POINTE~ OUT \i I N THE ENCLOSED LETTER. :' " .' H 'WHY SUCH C,TY COUNCIL DISCRIMINATION TO PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE !! SAME BLOCK'? ;' _" :1 . " .,. II I. THE EAST SIDE Of WILLAMETTE BETWEEN 18TH AND 19TH STREETS HAS BEEN ,i ZONED Cap (CENTRAL BUSINESS) fOR OVER fO YEARS. YET, THE OPPOSITE ~ :i OF THE STREET IS ST I LL ZONED RES I DENT I AL. WHY,? i, - . -, " :i 2. APR I L, 1957, TWO PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE WEST S I DE Of 18TH AND :! WILLAMETTE ST. REQUESTED THEIR PROPERTY ZONED TO C3P. THE CITY COUNCIL " AGREED AT TH~T TIME THAT THE PLANNING C6MMISSI0~ AND COMMON COUNCIL RE- ;i ZONE THE ENTIRE BLOCK TO CENTRAL BUSINESS. RESULT: THE TWO PROPERTY i! - ,. OWNERS NEXT TO THE CORNER AT 18TH & W,LLAMETTE DID GET THEIR PROPERTY , REZONED TO CENTRAL' Bus I NESS fOR A' SERVI CEo STATIO"N'"; BUT THE REST OF: a BLOCK (4 REMAINING PROPERTY OWNERS IN S~ME BLOCK) 010 NOT GET THE ii_ ~AME CONSlbERATI6N, IN' SP~TE OF fOLLOWIN~ CONDITIONS THAT EXIST THROUGH- r OUT THE WHOLE BLOCK. II n II A. THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE FORMALLY PETITIONED REZONING ~ TO CENTRAL Bus I NESS. i; L . ,--" B. THE fOUR REMAINING PROPERTY OWNERS STILL ZONED RESIDEN- )1 "I T1AL ARE PAYI NG COMPARABLE PROPERTY TAXES, STREET AND jl I SIDEWALK ASSESSMENTS AS THE PROPERT I ES ON OTHER S I DE OF :! STREET I N SAME BLOCK ZONEpCENTRAL BUSINESS ! WHY, TH IS:: DISCRIMINATION THEN AGAINST .REZONING TO CENTRAL BUSINESS I' JUST FOUR MORE PROPERTIES IN THE SAME BLOCK NOW ZONED AS j: RES"'DENT'AL? :! " !I j' . ,. I C. WHY IS CITY PAYING fOR THE STREET WIDENING OF MONROE Ii ST. AND WE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE HAVING' TO PAY FOR THE :: WIDENING OF WILLAMETTE ST.'? li 'I , '. :1 LET'S HAVE EQUAL CONSIDERATION fOR ALL, CITY COUNCIL! ,II :~ . I, i "P.S. WE WISH THIS LETTER TO BE INCLUDED ON THE AGENDA OF THE COUNCIL MEETING !I WHEN CONSIDERATION FOR REZONING WILL~M~TTE $T. BETWEEN 18TH & 19TH ST." IS ~ DISCUSSED'." " J T WAS MOVED BY MRs. LAURI S SECONDED BY MR. MOLHOLM THAT J TEM 8 OF THE COMM I TTEE: REPORT BE :' APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED~ CO~NCILMEN LA~RIS, MOLHOlM AND. S~ANSON VOTINQ ~YE; COUNCILMEN ' MOYER AND WILSON VOTING NAY. ;: Ii I 9. DISCUSSION REGARDING fORMULATION OF POLICY FOR REPLACING TREES DESTROYED BY :1 ,. STREET IMPROVEMENTS. - THE REPLACEMENT OF TRE~S DESTROYED BY STREET IMPROVEMENT Ii I ESPECIALLY AS IT PERTAINS TO THE WIDENING Of MONROE STREET BETWEEN 11TH AND I; 13TH AVENUES, WAS DISCUSSED BY THE COMMITTEE. IN THE DISC~SSION IT WAS POINTED !; OUT THERE I S NO .PRESENT PLAN TO MOVE THE ENTRANCE TO THE fA I RGROUNDS FROM MONROE ii STREET , ALTHOUGH AN ADD IT 10NAL ENTRANCE "HAS BEEN PROV IDEO ON ADAMS 'STREET. IT" WAS LIKEWIS.E POrNTED OUT 'THAT IF" THE STREET IS:WIDENED ,ON THE 66' RIGHT-Of-WA'y I TO A WIDT.H 'OF 42'AS.'PROI:"OSED, THERE WOULD 'STILL BE A 5-1/2' PARKING STRIP LE.FT, i AND THAT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO REPLANT TREES IN THE PARKING STRIP. IT'WAS'.. " ALSO STATED THAT TH'E PARKS DEPARTMEN'T HAS TREES I N THE NURSERY WH I CH COULD. BE :: PLANTED. fOLLOWI NG SO~EGENERAL 01 SCUSS ION, THE COMM I TTEE R"ECOMMENDED THAT , ; e THE TREES BE REPLACED ON MONROE STREET BETWEEN 11TH AND .13TH AVENUES AND THAT I ' I THE POLICY DETERMINATION FOR REPLACING TREES DESTROYED BY STREET IMPROVEMENTS :' I BE HELD F"OR FURTHER STUDY. MOT ION CARR I ED, MR. SWANSON VOT I NG NAY. Ii ,I " I T WAS MOVED BY MRS. LAuR I S SECONDED BY MR. MOLHOLM THAT ITEM 9 OF THE COM"M I TTEE REPORT Ii BE APPROVED. MOT ION CARR I ED. i' :' 2 10. CONSIDERATION OF ROAD WIDTH IN REPLAT OF 1ST ADDITION TO 'CAPITOL HILL - REFERENCE !: WAS MADE TO THE MINUTES OF" THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 7, 1959 IN " WHICH THE ARCHITECTURA~ FiRM Of KEEFE AND HERBERT EXPLi'NED THE PROPOSED REPLAT OF THE 1ST ADDITION TO CAPITOL HILL. THEREPLATTING WAS 'TO BE DONE SO THE AREA : COULD BE UTILIZED MORE EF"FICIENTLY THAN IN THE EXISTING PLAT WITH AN INFORMAL, CASUAL ATMOSPHERE, AND WITH ROADWAYS DELIBERATELY DESIGNED TO SLOWTRAFFJC. fOR TH I S REASON THE ARCH'ITECTS PROPOSE A 16' PAV I NG WIDTH WITH A 3' GRAVEL SHOULDER. THE DIRECTOR OF" PUBLIC WORKS INDICAT~D IT IS DIFrlCUL: TO :HOLD'A I PAVED SURFACE WITHOUT A CURB AND IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT A ROLLED CURB BE USED IN PLACE OF A VERTICAL CURB. IT WAS EXPLAINED THATCURBS ARE ESSENTIAL TO PRO- PER DRAINAGE, AND THEY .ARE ALSO ESSENTIAL TO KEEP VEHICULAR TRAFFIC OF"F" SIDE- 1'- WALKS. SOME CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION WAS HAD ON THIS SUBJECT, AND IT WAS GENERALLY AGREED THAT A 16' STREET IS NOT ADEQUATE fOR ANY PURPOSE. fOLLOWING THE DISCUSSION IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE STREET WIDTH BE ESTABLISHED AT 20' F"ROM CURB F"ACE TO CURB FACE WITH A ROLLED CURB. MOTION CARRIED. IT WAS MOVED BY MRS. LAURIS SECONDED BY MR. MOLHOLM THAT ITEM 10 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT ~ BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. ~