Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> 238 <br /> e <br /> -- II /2:~/59 _ --- - --. - ~ -- - ~ . <br /> --, <br /> -- - -------_.- <br /> c <br /> I I' <br /> I <br />I ' I. REQUEST FROM LANE COUNTY EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE FOR MID-BLOCK CROSSWALK ON OAK I <br /> I <br /> STREET BETWEEN 7TH AND 8TH AVENUES - A REQUEST FROM THE LANE COUNTY EMPLOYEES I <br /> COMMITTEE ASKING THAT A CROSSWALK BE INSTALLED CROSSING OAK STREET BETWEEN 7TH I, <br /> AND 8TH AVENUES FROM THE COURTHOUSE TO THE PARKING STRUCTURE WAS READ AS WAS A I, <br /> II <br /> REPORT FROM THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER. THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER INDICATED HE COULD NOT 1\ <br /> ,\ <br /> RECOMMEND SUCH A CROSSWALK SINCE ITS PRINCIPAL USE WOULD BE UNDER PEAK HOUR II <br /> TRAfFIC CONDITIONS, THAT TRAFFIC SIGNALS ARE LOCATED ON BOTH 7TH AND 8TH AVENUES <br /> I WHICH ARE LESS THAN 400 FEET APART, AND THAT A MID-BLOCK CROSSWALK WOULD REQUIRE AT II <br /> LEAST A PEAK PERIOD TRAFFIC SIGNAL WHICH WOULO INTERCONNECT WITH THE EXISTING il <br /> LIGHTS REQUIRING EXTRA TIMING EQUIPMENT WHICH WOULD FIT THE LOCATION AND WOULD BE 11 <br /> EXPENSIVE. ALSO, THE SIGNING FOR SUCH A CROSSWALK WOULD BE DIFFICULT. SOME DIS- I <br /> CUSSION WAS HAD ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER, AND THE COMMITTEE I <br />I RECOMMENI;>ED THAT IT BE ACCEPTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ,I <br />I I <br />2l 2. REQUEST FROM MCCRACKEN BROS. MOTOR FREIGHT TO ENTER ALLEY BETWEEN BROADWAY AND f <br /> ,I <br /> II <br />I 10TH AVENUE FROM OAK STREET CONT;RARY TO ~E-WAY GRID SYSTEM AND BLOCK ALLEY FOR Ii <br />! 3-HOUR PERIOD ONCE A WEEK - A LETTER FROM MCCRACKEN BROS. MOTOR FREIGHT WAS READ !I e <br /> INDICATING THEY HAVE A CUSTOMER WHO RECEIVES fULL TRAILER LOADS OF MERCHANDISE !I <br /> AND WHOSE SERVICE ENTRANCE OPENS ONTO THE ALLEY RUNNING PARALLEL TO BROADWAY BE- <br /> TWEEN BROADWAY AND 10TH AVENUE F~OM WILLAMETTE TO OAK STREET. THE LETTER FURTHER I; <br /> EXPLAIN~D THAT THE TRAILER IN WHICH THE MERCHANDISE IS TRANSPORTED HAS A RIGHT <br /> SIDE DOOR AS WELL AS A REAR DOOR, AND IT IS IMPORTANT THAT BOTH DOORS BE USED FOR (I <br /> I! <br /> UNLOADING WHICH MUST BE DONE BY MEANS OF AN ENDLESS MOTOR DRIVEN BELT TO THE 11 <br /> CUSTOMER'S SECOND FLOOR SroCK ROOM. FOR THESE REASONS THEY REQUESTED THEY BE 'I I <br /> 11 <br /> ALLOWED TO BLOCK THE ALLEY FRO A 3-HOUR PERIOD AND THAT THEY BE ALLOWED TO ENTER II <br /> THE ALLEY FROM OAK STREET SO THE SIDE DOOR COULD BE USED. lj <br /> IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE REQUEST WAS IN OPPOSITION TO EXISTING ORDINANCES AL- l <br />I THOUGH IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING ORDINANCES <br />I MIGHT BE DRAWN ALLOWING SUCH AN OPERATION ON A LIMITED BASIS SUBJECT,TO DEFINITE 1\ <br /> CONTROLS BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. SOME DISCUSSION WAS GIVEN TO POSSIBLE ALTER- II <br /> NATIVES AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT THE ALLEY WOULD BE BLOCKED FOR EMERGENCY EQUIP- <br />! MENT AND OTHER PUBLIC USE. THE CITY ATTORNEY INDICATED HE PROPOSES TO DRAWt!AN . ,I <br /> II <br />I ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD GIVE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SOME FLEXIBILITY IN ENFORCEMENT II <br />: ON THE USE OF ALLEYS. SOME DISCUSSION WAS ALSO HAD ON THE SIGNING OF THE ALLEY (t <br />I <br />I TO INDICATE ,IT WAS CLOSED FOR THE PERIOD OF UNLOADING. il <br /> FOLLOWING THIS DISCUSSION IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED ON A \i <br />I SIX MONTHS' TRIAL BASIS SUBJECT TO REVIEW. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. II <br />I II <br />31 3. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED STATE BUILDING SITE IN URBAN RENEWAL AREA - COUNCILMAN Ii <br />, l' <br />I MOLHOLM, CHAIRMAN OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY, INDICATED IT HAS BEEN REPORTED <br />, ,I <br />i THAT THE STATE OF OREGON ,NOW HAS~ NUMBER OF LEASES FOR OfFICE SPACE WHICH ARE II <br />, <br />I UP FOR-RENEWAL AND THAT THE STATE IS ACTIVELY PURSUING THE IDEA OF BUILDING A <br /> STATE OfFICe: BUILDING IN THE CITY OF EUGENE. HE FURTHER INDICATED THAT MR.RoBERT <br />I Ii <br />I ELGIN fROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE OF OREGON IS II <br />I Ii <br />I CURRENTLY INVESTIGATING THE POSSIBILITY OF BUILDING.SITES IN THE C,TYOf EUGENE. <br /> MR. MOLHOLM ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE STATE Of OREGON DOES NOT FEEL IT CAN PAY I <br />I MORE FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITION IN THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA THAN FOR WHICH ,I <br /> I T COULD I) <br />I ACQUIR~ PROPERTY IN OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY. IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT MR. ELGIN I. <br /> BE ASKED TO ATTEND THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON MONDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 16, ;1 <br /> 1959, OR AT SOME SUBSEQUENT COMMITTEE MEETING. II <br /> '! <br /> COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES 'I <br /> INDICATED THEY BELIEVE IF IT WERE POSSIBLE FOR THE 11 <br /> STATE TO WAIT, PROPERTY COULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE STATE OF OREGON AT AS i( <br /> GOOD A PRICE AS ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY OF EUGENE. II e <br /> 'I <br /> I <br /> IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT THE CITY MANAGER CONTACT MR. ELGIN AND ASK HIM TO MEET II <br /> WITH THE COUNCIL AS INDICATED ABOVE. No fORMAL ACTION WAS TAKEN. 'I <br /> II <br /> IT WAS MOVED' BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MRS. LAUR I S THAT ITEMS I, 2 AND 3 OF THE COMMITTEE II <br /> REPORT BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED, MR. WILSON ABSTAINING. " <br /> II <br /> 'I <br /> MRS. LAURIS COMMENTED THERE SHOULD BE A BRIDGE OR A TUNNEL FROM THE COURTHOUSE TO THE PARK- II <br /> ING STRUCTURE. MR. WILSON SUGGESTED THAT THE CITY OF EUGENE SHOULD HAVE CROSSWALKS IN MID- II <br />I BLOCK, AND HE FURTHER SUGGESTED IT IS SAFER TO CROSSIN MID-BLOCK. I, <br />4\ 4. DISCUSSION Of PURCHASE Of MCKy PROPERTY IN THE NORTH BANK PARK AREA - IT WAS RE- Il <br /> I <br /> PORTED THAT A SERIES OF CONFERENCES HAD BEEN HELD WITH MR. MCKY AS TO THE ACQUISI- I <br /> TION OF HIS PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE WILLAMETTE RIVER APPROXIMATELY DUE I <br /> NORTH OF JUDKINS POINT. AN AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED TO PURCHASE THE 72.5 ACRES I <br /> OF PROPERTY IN THE OWNERSHIP Of MR. McKY AT A TOTAL COST OF $135,000 WITH SUCH Ii I <br /> PROPERTY TO BE PURCHASED OVER A 5-YEAR PERIOD AND THE ACTUAL ACQUISITION Of THE II <br /> PROPERTY TO BE IN FIVE PAYMENTS, ONE PAYMENT EACH YEAR AT A COST OF $27,000 PER YEAR. <br />I A MAP OF THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE PURCHASED WAS SHOWN, AND IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT r <br />I <br /> THE PROPERTY IS PARTIALLY GRAZING AND PARTIALLY PRODUCTIVE FARM LAND, THAT-THE i <br /> PURCHASE PRICE INCLUDES THE EXTERIOR FENC~NG BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE INT-ERIOR t <br /> fENCING OR TWO SILOS. <br /> Ii e <br /> Ii <br /> 1 " <br /> Ii <br /> I 'I <br />~\I " <br />