11/23/1959 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~242 I e ,II ~23,/59 - . .,. , .-- ---_...- IT 11 1 I I. DISCUSSION OF PLAN fOR PROPOSED FIRE STATION AT MCKINLEY STREET AND BROADWAY - MR. RHODES, THE ARCHITECT FOR THE fIRE STATION, PRESENTED A PLAN fOR 'THE fiRE ,I STATION AND EXPLAINED SUCH PLAN TO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. THE FIRE CHIEf INDI- CATED THAT THE CITY HAS GIVEN UP THE IDEA OF FEDERAL PARTICIPATION FOR C,VIL- 1\ DEfENSE SINCE TO MEET THE NECESSARY STANDARDS SET UP BY THE FEDERAL CIVIL DEFENSE " AGENCY WOULD MAKE THE BUILDING TOO EXPENS1VE. II MR. RHODES INDICATED THAT THE BUILDING WILL HAVE TRAINING FACILITIES, REPAIR II FACILITIES, AND REGULAR flRESTATION FACILITIES AND IT IS BELIEVED WILL COST IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $75,000. HE FURTHER INDICATED THAT IT. WILL BE OF ~RAME AND ,I MASONRY CONSTRUCTION. THE FIRE CHIEF' INDICATED THE PLAN WOlLD NEET THEIR NEE"DS VERY WELL AND WOULD ALLOW FOR COOPERATIVE TRAINING AMONG ALL FIRE DEPARTMENTS 'I IN THIS AREA. I, I I I IT WAS RECOMMENDED THE PLAN RECEIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL. MOTION CARR1ED UNANI- MOUSLY. e 21 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AT MAHLON- Ii SWEET AIRPORT - MR. CLARK, THE ARCHITECT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TO EXPLAIN A SERIES OF SKETCHES AND A PROPOSED I, FLOOR PLAN FOR THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AT MAHLON-SWEET AIRPORT. DURING THE COURSE OF THE DISCUSSION IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE IN II II THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING SINCE IF IT IS TO BE SUBMITTED F'OR FEDERAL AID SUCH II I SUBMISSION WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE. ON'OR BEFORE DECEMBER 15, 1959. FOLLOWING I THE PRESENTATION IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT TENTATIVE APPROVAL BE GIVEN THESE PLANS. I MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3 3. REQUEST BY MRS. MERRYMAN TO ~ISCUSS DRAINAGE DITCH AT MAHLON-SWEET AIRPORT - t MRS. MERR~MAN APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AND EXPLAINED HER PROBLEM AS IT , I, RELATES TO DRAINAGE DITCHES IN THE_ AREA. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS EX- II PLAINED THAT A DRAINAGE DITCH MEANDERS THROUGH MRS. MERRYMAN'S PROPERTY AND' II THAT THE CITY IS DESIROUS OF CLEANING THIS DITCH AND FURTHER THAT THE. CLEANING \I Ii WILL OF NECESSITY WIDEN THE DITCH AND THAT MRS. MERRYMAN STATES THAT SHE WILL 'I II LOSE SOME PROPERTY AND_ IS DESIROUS OF ACQUIRING SOME PORTION OF PROPERTY CUR- ti RENTLY IN THE CITY'S OWNERSHIP ADJACENT TO HER EXISTING PROPERTY. I TWAS FUR- II THER EXPLAINED THAT THE DITCH WHICH MEANDERS THROUGH THE MERRYMAN PROPERTY II I DRAINS TWO DITCHES ON TWO SIDES Of THE AIRPORT. 11 . ,. FOLLOWING SOME GENERAL D1SCUSSION ON THIS SUBJECT IT WAS RECOMMENDED THIS Ii I MATTER BE HELD OVER FOR VIEWING BY THE COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. II II 4 4. DISCUSSION REGARDJNG PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN THE OWNERSHIP OF MRS. I RA STEWART. !l , LOCATED AT BROADWAY AND MILL STREET - THE COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES V.lEWED f THIS PARTICULARPRORERTY AND ALSO VIEWED THE PROPOSED, ROUTE OF THE EXPRESSWAY I , FROM BROADWAY TO 29TH AVENUE. SOME DISCUSSION WAS HAD BY MR. UREY AND BY THE Ii " PLANNING CONSULTANT ON THE NECESSITY OR LACK OF NECESSITY FOR SUCH STREET. !I MR. UREY REITERATED AS DID MR. STEWART, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, AND MR.SUMMERS, II 1 THE OPTION HOLDER, THAT THEY QUESTION THE NECESSITY FOR A STREET AT THIS PAR- I, I TICULAR LOCATION. THE PLANNING CONSULTANT REITERATED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN r EXPRESSWAY STREET IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE CITY AND THAT THE CITY CANNOT CONTINUE TO USE LOCAL STREETS FOR THE MAJOR MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT I THAT THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AT BROADWAY AND MILL STREET WOULD B.E THE KEY TO II THE POTENTIAL USE OF STREETS ANYWHERE SOUTH OF BROADWAY. CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION WAS HAD _ON THIS MATTER BUT NO FORMAL ACTION WAS TAKEN. il 5 5. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED BUILDING PROGRAM BY THE STATE OF OREGON - MR. ELGIN, RE- I e I PRESENTING MR. FREEMAN HOLMER, THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE ADMINI- I I STRATION FOR THE STATE OF OREGON, APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, INDICATED THAT I !' THE STATE WISHES TO BE ABLE TO LOCATE A BUILDING IN THE VICNITY OR IN THE URBAN ,\ RENEWAL AREA, BUT FURTHER. STATED THAT TIME IS THE GOVERNING FACTOR AND REQUESTED II I 't I THE STATE BE INFORMED AS TO THE COST OF LAND IN THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA ,AS SOON AS i, I 11 \ POSSIBLE. MR. ELGIN FURTHER INDICATED THAT THE STATE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PAY i, I MORE FOR PROPERTY IN THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA THAN 1T COULD PAY TO ACQUIRE PRO- II I PERTY IN OTHER AREAS Of THE CITY. HE FURTHER EXPRESSED THE IDEA THAT THE STATE II OF OREGON IS DESIROUS OF WORKING WITH THE CITY OF EUGENE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CIVIC CENTER PROGRAM. IN THE DISCUSSION IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT TWO APPRAISALS I, ARE CURRENTLY BEING MADE OR ARE ABOUT TO BE STARTED, AND THAT THE RE-USE APPRAISAL 'I WOULD PROBABLY BE KNOWN .ABOUT MID-JANUARY AND THAT .THE STATE COULD BE I NFORMED AS I TO THE POTENTIAL COST OF ACQUIRING LAND IN THE AREA BY ABOUT JANUARY 15.. . IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THERE IS SOME POSSIBILITY .OF PUBLIC AGENCIES ACQUIRING LAND 11 WITHIN THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA WHILE THE PROJECT IS STILL IN THE PLANNING STAGE, I I BUT THAT THIS SECTION OF THE FEDERAL LAW HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED AND THE il ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. I THERE WAS GENERAL AGREEMENT AMONG COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT THAT AS,MUCH i I INFORMA- l I TION AS IS POSSIBLE SHOULD BE FURNISHED THE STATE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. No FORMAL II ACTION WAS TAKEN." .1 I \ I ITEM 4 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT WAS REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION F.OR FURTHER ) STUDY. -(SEE ACT ION UNDER ITEM 7 OF COMMITTEE REPORT OF NOVEMBER 13, 1959. ) If e l " ~i,\ :Ii