07/27/1959 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r'""130 . e 7/27/59 - - --~----------------- ----------- - -.-- -- - - ~ - ., 1\ I IT WAS MOVED BY MRS. LAURIS SECONDED BY MR. MOLHOLM THAT ITEM 12 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT ~ I MOTION CARRIED. :: BE APPROVED. :i 1:1 13. DISCUSSION REGARDING CHANGING OF 10TH AVENUE FROM 'A ONE-WAY STREET WESTBOUND II ;: TO A TWO-WAY STREET IN CONNECTfON WITH THE 11TH-13TH AVENUE ONE-WAY COUPLET - I. I IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT 10TH AVENUE WILL HAVE TO BECOME A TWO-WAY STREET WHEN 11TH AND 13TH AVENUES BECOME A ONE-WAY COUPLET AND THAT. A eMANGE TO THE ONE- i WAY STATUS OF. THE STREET IS ALSO NECESSARY WHILE BROADWAY IS, CLOSED FOR THE I CENTENNIAL OBSERVANCE FROM AUGUST 3-26j 1959. THE, COMM1TTEE DISCUSSED TKIS I PROPOSED CHANGE AND RECOMMENDED THAT A PERMANENT CHANGE MAKING 10TH AVENUE A. TWO-WAY STREET BE AUTHORIZED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. IT WAS MOVED BY MRS. LAURIS SECONDED BY MR.. MOLHOLM THAT ITEM 13 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE APPROVED. MOTION.CARRIED. 2 14. REQUEST BY OREGON STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT FOR PERMIT OF ENTRY ONTO CITY - OWNED PROPERTY IN VICINITY. OF JUDKINS POINT,- IT WAS EXPLA I NED T.HAT THE OREGON STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT WISHES, TO. PURCHASE PROPERT~ES IN CITY OWNER- SHIP IN THE VICINITY OF JUDKINS POINT WHICH PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED ON: BOTH THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF THE PROPOSED BRIDGE AND BETWEEN THE HIGHWAY AND THE RIVER. AT THIS TIME THERE IS SOME QUESTION OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP WHICH :';C NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED, AND IN ORDER THAT. THE_OREGON STATE HIGHWAY bEP~RTMENT " WILL NOT BE HELD UP IN THE EVENT THE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION 15 TO COMMENCE IN :1 I THE NEAR FUTURE IT WAS: REQUESTED THAT A. PERMIT OF ENTRY BE AUTHORIZED ALLOW-' ING THE OREGON STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ENTRY ONTO CITY OWNED PROPERTY IN THIS, I VICINITY. THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL Of~THE PERMIT OF ENTRY. MOTION il I CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. i( Ii IT WAS MOVED BY MRS.: LAURJS SECONDED BY MR. MOLHOLK THAT THE ITEM 14 OF THE COMMITTEE RE- i! PORT BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. if \1 " 3 15. RECOMMENDATION OF CITY ATTORNEY CONCERNING CAMPBELL PROPERTY CONDEMNATION " Ii ~'- A LETTER fROM THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS READ TO THE COMMITTEE IN WHICH " I IT WAS STATED THAT HE HAD FILED A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL WITH THE COURT,- ': THAT HE HAD FILED A MOTION TO HAVE THE CLAIM OF THE DEFENDENT FOR ALLOWANCE i! OF ATTORNEYS' FEES IN T:HE SUM OF $5,875.00 REDUCED TO, $1,500.00, AND THAT " " :1 HE HAD OBTAINED AN ORDER FROM THE COURT REDUCING THE ATTORNEYS' FEES TO 1\ II $1,500.00, AND HAD FURTHER FILED A FORMAL NOTICE OF APPEAL Of THE CASE TO I' ,: THE ORtGON S~PREME COURT AND AN UNDERTAKING. !l :1 I :, THE CITY ATTORNEY ALSO INDICATED ~N HIS LETTER THAT IN HIS. OPINION IF AN II APPEAL IS TAKEN TO THE OREGON SUPREME COURT IT WOULD. NOT BE ALLOWED, AND 11 " IN ADDITION TO THE JUDGMENT WHICH AT THE PRESENT TIME TOTALS $27,468.48, " I THERE'WOULD BE ADDFrIONAL, COSTS NOT ONLY ON THE: APPEAL BUT APPROXIMA:rELY Ii $1,500.00 PER. YEAR ANNUAL INTEREST CHARGE FOR THE :rWO YEARS IT WOULD TAKE I: ,! THE CASE TO BE APPEALED AND A DECISION RENDERED~ FOR THESE AND OTHER II [' REASONS THE CITY A:rTORNEY RECOMMENDED THAT THE JUDGMENT BE PAID AND THAT II I !, FURTHER PURSUANCE OF THE APPEAL TO' THE OREGON SUPREME COURT BE ABANDONED. " II THE COMMITTEE CONSIDERED THIS SUBJECT AND THE ATTORNEY'S LETTER AND RECOM- II MENDED THAT THE JUDGMENT, ATTORNEYS" FEES AND INTEREST BE PAID. MOTION II II CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. II i il Ii IT WAS MOVED BY MRS.: LAUR.IS SECONDED BY MR. MOLHOLM THAT ITEM 15 Of" THE, COMMITTEE REPORT !j BE APPROVED. ROLLCALL VOTE. COUNCILMEN LAURIS, MOLHOLM, W-ILSON.'.AND SWANSON' VOTING AYE; e Ii COUNCILMAN MOYER VOTING NAY; MOTION CARRIED. \+ " 'I I: 4 16. REPOR~ REGARDING REZONING OF SCHNEIDER PROPERTY AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF I' " 18TH AVENUE AND HILYARD STREET - THE CITY ATTORNEY INDICATED THAT A LETTER t~ Ii , HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM THREE OWNERS OF PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY SOUTH Of THE I' II PROPOSED REZONINa AREA INDICATIN~ SUCH OWNERS CQ~TEMPLATEREQUESTINaREZON- H I NG AND fURTHER ALLEG I NG THAT THE REZON I NG Of THE: ONE PARCEL Of PROPERTY IS " i SPOT ZONING. THE CITY ATTORNEY STATED~ THAT HE HAD READ COURT CASES WITH I I RESPECT TO SPOT ZONING AND HE IS GENERALLY OF THE OPINION THAT SPOT ZONING ! I 15 GENERALLY UNLAWFUL BUT THAT ~T IS DEPENDEN.T UPON: THE CIRCUMSTANCES 01"-' :t EACH INDIVIDUAL REQUEST. FOR THI~ REASON THE CITY ATTORNEY RECOMMENDED \, " THIS MATTER BE HELD UP. THE COMMITTEE MADE NO RECOMMENDATION ON THIS SUB- ;1 I: JECT. :1 il " IT WAS MOVED BY MRS. LAURIS SECONDED BY MR. SWANSON THAT ITEM 16 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT i, :' MOTION CARRiED. I I BE APPROVED. Ii - Ii I. 5 17. REQUEST FOR SEGREGATION OF PROPERTY TO ALLOW THE PLATTING OF 3RD AND 4TH i' ,! ADDITION TO HIGHLAND OAKS - THE FINANCE OfFICER EXPLAINED THAT THE SUB- ii DIVIDERS OF HIGHLAND OAKS WISH TO fiLE TWO NEW PLATS AND THAT THE CITY HAS II I: AN OUTSTAND I NG ASSESSMENT ON ALL OF SUCH PROPERTY ON A METES AND BOUNDS~ ,I DESCRIPTION. A MAP WAS SHOWN SHOWING T:HE EXISTING: BOUNDARIES Of THE ASSESS- II MENT AND THE PROPOSED BOUNDARIES ~THE 'ASSESSMENT If REQUESTED SEGREGATION )1 WERE APPROVED. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT SUCH A SEGREGATION -IS ESSENTIAL e FOR MAINTENANCE Of RECORDS IN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS TO ALLOW i: '\ ~i