12/14/1959 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r-- 2'5,6' e 12/14/59 n_ -- - . - ; I I 4. REQUEST BY MABLE MOYER TO PURCHASE SMALL PARCEL Of CITY OWNED PROPERTY BETWEEN I 32ND AND 33RD AVENUES ON THE WEST SIDE OF FERRY STREET - AN OFfER TO PURCHASE II I A PARCEL OF PROPERTY fOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A SMALL HOUSE WAS PRESENTED BY MRS. MABLE MOYER. MRS. MOYER OffERED THE SUM OF $500.00 FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED I' LOT. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE CITY AT PRESENT OWNS A PARCEL 60'X81.5' BUT THAT 11 SINCE THE STREETS ARE 20'~ WIDER TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY IT WOULD BE PROPOSED :t THAT ONLY A 50'X81.5' PARCEL BE SOLD, RETAINING 10 ' FOR P0TENTIAL STREET PURPOSES. II IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT A VARIANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE LOT SIZE " SINCE IT WOULD NOT MEET THE MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS SET fORTH IN THE ZONING ORDI- d ;i NANCE. FOLLOWING SOME DISCUSSION IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE 50'X81.5' PARCEL BE Ii SOLD TO MRS. MABLE MOYER AT A PURCHASE PRICE Of $500.00. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR. MOLHOLM THAT ITEM 4 Of THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE 11 APPROVED. ROLLCALL VOTE. ALL COUNCILMEN PRESENT VOTING AYE, MOTION CARRIED. I t 2 5. REQUEST BY SAM P. ANO LOIS E. BULLER REGARDING HOUSE PROJECTING INTO PEDESTRIAN II I WAY ADJACENT TO LOT 5, BLOCK 2, PARK-A IRE SUBDIVISION - IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THROUGH r e AN ERROR A SUBCONTRACTOR EMPLOYED BY MR. BULLER TO FRAME A HOUSE TO BE LOCATED ON II I LOT 5, BLOCK 2, PARK-AIRE SUBDIVISION, HAD CONSTRUCTED THE HOUSE SO THAT IT PRO- ,I JECTS 3.1' INTO THE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY BETWEEN LOTS5 AND 6, BLOCK 2, PARK-A IRE I SUBDIVISION. I t COMMITTEE MEMBERS DROVE TO THE SITE Of THE BUILDING AND OBSERVED THERE ARE APPROXI- I' MATELY 18' BETWEEN THE HOUSES CONSTRUCTED ON LOTS 5 AND 6. VARIOUS ALTERNATIVE I I I METHODS OF RESOLVING THE PROBLEM WERE DISCUSSED AND IT WAS fiNALLY RECOMMENDED !, THAT THE CITY VACATE THE PRESENT WALKWAY BETWEEN LOTS 5 AND 6, THAT THE BULLERS , I I REDEDICATE A 10'WALKWAY EQUIDISTANT BETWEEN THE HOUSES CONSTRUCTED ON LOTS 5 AND ! 6. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. i i! IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR. CHATT THAT ITEM 5 Of THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE Ii APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. PETITION PROTESTING SIDEWALK ON EAST SIDE OF HILYARD STREET BETWEEN 35TH AND 37TH II 3 6. I I AVENUES - IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT A PETITION HAD BEEN PRESENTED PROTESTING THE CON- I STRUCTION Of SIDEWALKS ON THE EAST SIDE Of HILYARD STREET fOR THE fOLLOWING REA- ,I SONS: PETITIONERS UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY 'DOES NOT INTEND TO PAVE THE WEST SIDE , OF THE STREET AT THIS TIME, THERE IS LITTLE PEDESTRIAN TRAffiC AT PRESENT, THERE 11 , II IS NO PLACE FOR PEDESTRIANS TO GO IN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD, SCHOOL CHILDREN DO NOT USE SIDEWALKS SINCE THEY ARE TRANSPORTED BY SCHOOL BUS, PROPERTY OWNERS DO II :1 ' ' ,I NOT fEEL THEY CAN AFfORD THE EXTRA BURDEN Of SIDEWALK ASSESSMENTS, AND PROPERTY i' II OWNERS IN THE AREA DID NOT REQUEST THE SIDEWALKS. Ii II. II COMMITTEE MEMBERS DROVE TO A~D VIEWED THE SITE COVERED BY THE PETITION AND FURTHER I! HEARD A REPORT fROM THE DIRECTOR Of PUBLIC WORKS THAT THE SIDEWALK COULD BE CON- 'I il II STRUCTED MORE ADVANTAGEOUSLY BETWEEN 35TH AND 37TH AVENUES AT THE TIME THE STREET PAVING PROJECT IS INSTALLED IN THE AREA BECAUSE fiLL DIRT CAN BE TAKEN fROM STREET II CUTS fOR THE SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION. FOLLOWING SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM IT II WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE SIDEWALK PROJECT ON THE EAST SIDE Of HILYARD STREET BE- l: I " TWEEN 35TH AND 37TH AVENUES BE HELD UP UNTIL HILYARD STREET IS PAVED. MOTION ;/ II CARRIED UAANIMOUSLY. IT WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT SIDEWALKS 'WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED ON I THE WEST SIDE OF HILYARD STREET BETWEEN 35TH AND 37TH AVENUES. ,j IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MRS. LAURIS THAT ITEM 6 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE I :1 APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. n il I II 41 7. REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY ON WILEY CONDEMNATION SUIT - THE COMMITTEE HEARD A REPORT II - , fROM THE CITY ATTORNEY WHICH REVIE~ED THE WILEY CONDEMNATION SUIT AND IN WHICH THE I I CITY ATTORNEY PARTICULARLY MADE REfERENCE TO THE ALLQWANCE BY THE COURT OF $2882.60. I II THE CITY ATTORNEY fURTHER INDICATED THAT THE OREGON SUPREME COURT HAD NEVER RENDERED I' A QECISION IN A CONDEMNATION CASE AS TO WHETHER A LOCAL ASSESSMENT AGAINST AUBTTING .1 'I PROPERTY FOR THE COST Of IMPROVEMENT IS OR IS NOT A PROPER ITEM Of DAMAGES IN THE Ii TRIAL Of A CONDEMNATION CASE fOR THE TAKING OF PROPERTY fOR EASEMENT RIGHTS. THE II CITY ATTORNEY SUGGESTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS ALLOWED AS AN ELEMENT Of II D~~AGE IN THE WILEY CASE, THERE IS NEED fOR CLARIFICATION Of THE LAW AND THE RE- I MOVAL Of ANY DOUBT AS TO THESE MATTERS, AND fOR THESE REASONS HE RECOMMENDED THAT \1 THE WILEY CASE BE APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT. 11 I I FOLLOWING SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE ATTORNEY'S I OPINION BE fOLLOWED AND THE CASE BE APPEALED TO THE OREGON STATE SUPREME COURT. I, MOTIO~ CARRIED, MRS. LAURIS VOTING NAY. II IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR. CHATT THAT ITEM 7 Of THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE :1 I II APPROVED. ROLLCAll VOTE. All COUNCilMEN PRESENT VOTING AYE, MOTION CARRIED. II II 5 8. REPORT BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Of THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF THE CITY Of EUGENE ~ " THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY APPEARED BEfORE THE COMMITTEE !j AND PRESENTED A REPORT ON THE PROGRESS MADE TOWARD THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED II NEW STATE BUILDING IN THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Of THE URBAN II RENEWAL AGENCY INDICATED HE HAD MET WITH MR. ROBERT ELGIN, CHIEf Of THE REAL PRO- I' PERTY SECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE ADMINISTRATION, AND THAT MR. ELGIN HAD j e tl ~J I; " I