<br />/1 ~
<br />
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />
<br />8/22/60
<br />
<br />;' il
<br />;1 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ii
<br />.' I
<br />I ' I T WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER AND SECONDED BY MRS. LA'UR I S THAT ITEM 7 OF THE COMM I TTEE REPORT il
<br />-'BE -APP-R'OVED. - MOT I ON~ARR I ED.
<br />-. . -. . . - . - - .. .
<br />
<br />I -S; '_-CONS'-DERATi-ONOF -aR-TAIN 'TRAFF'-C- 'AND P-AR-K-'NG CHANGE-S, BYT-HE- TRAFFIC ENGINEI>R- A MEMO-
<br />RANDUM FROM THE,TRAFFIC ENG8NEER WAS READ TO THE COMMITTEE, ~N WHICH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS
<br />WERE MADE BY THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER:
<br />
<br />A. CURBSIDE POSTAL DROP BOX AT 5TH AND W1LLAMETTE:
<br />THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION MEMORANDUM INDICATED THAT HE HAD BEEN IN CONTACT WITH
<br />THE POSTMASTER AND THAT THE POSTMASTER HAD AGREED TO TRY A PLAN WHICH WOULD PLACE A DROp BOX ON
<br />THE SOUTH CURB ~ 5TH AVENUE NEAR THE CORNER OF WILLAMETTE, LEAVING CLEAR~NCE FOR THE PEDESTRIAN
<br />CROSSWALK. FOUR PARKING METERS WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED AND THE BUS ZONE USED AS A STORAGE AREA
<br />WHILE WAITING TO DRIVE UP TO THE BOX.
<br />THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION BE ADOPTED AS OUTLINED.
<br />MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
<br />
<br />e ~ B. PARK I NG METER STUDY:
<br />THE TRAFFIC: ENGINEER'S MEMORANDUM STATED T~AT HE HAD BEEN REQUESTED BY THE RETAIL MERCHANT'S
<br />ASSOCIATION TO NOT TAKE ACTION UNTIL THEY HAD TRIED TO FIND SOME SOLUTION. THE 5~ FOR 15 MINUTE
<br />PARKING WOULD AFFECT ABOUT 150 PARKING METERS IN THE PRIME AREA. THE MEMORANDUM STATED THAT IF
<br />THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION IS NECESSARY AT THIS TIME, HE WOULD RECOMMEND AGAINST THE 5~
<br />FOR 15 MINUTES PARKING. No ACT tON WAS TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE.
<br />- - '
<br />
<br />
<br />I 3 C. THE 19TH AND WI LLAMETTE I NTERSECT ION:
<br />, , THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S MEMORANDUM INDICATED THAT THE 19TH AND W,LLAMETTE INTERSECTION SITUATION
<br />WOULD BE ELIMINATED WHEN THE HIGH-PEARL COUPLET IS PUT INTO EFFECT. ~E STATED THAT HE IS AWAITING
<br />MATERIALS FOR THE HIGH-PEARL AT 19TH SIGNAL INSTALLATI~. No ACTION WAS TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE.
<br />
<br />t D. TWO-WAY TRAFFIC ON_ PARK BLOCKS:. _ ,,' _ _ _
<br />THE TRAFF I C ENG I NEER I ND I CATED HE HAD MADE A STUDY OF THE PROREAL TO MAIf: PARK STREETS TWO-
<br />WA Y STREETS. BECAUSE I T WOULD BE NECESSARY TO MAKE ALL PARK I NG PARALLEL, IT \-iOULD B'E NECESSARY TO
<br />PROVIDE SIGNALIZATION AT THE POINTS WHERE PARK INTERSECTS WITH OAK ANDSTH AVENUE. AT THE NORTHERLY
<br />EXTENSION OF WEST PARK STREET, THE CITY HAS ONLY A 14'ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE ENTRANCE TO AND EXIT
<br />FROM 7TH AVENUE IS VERY CONGESTED IN TIMES OF PEAK TRAFFIC.
<br />THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION AGAINST TWO-WAY TRAFFIC
<br />IN THE PARK BLOCKS BE APPROVED. ~OTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
<br />THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT ITEMS B, C, AND D OF THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT BE RECEIVED
<br />AND PLACED ON FILE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER AND SECONDED BY MRS. LAURIS THAT I~M 8 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT
<br />BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED.
<br />
<br />( , 9. CONSI DERATION OF REQUEST BY EUGENE VEf-.JN TO PURCHASE PARCEL OF PROPERTY BETWEEN 30TH AND
<br />31ST AVENUES ON FERRY STREET- - ' THE COMMITTEE VIEWED THE PROPERTY WHICH HAD' BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE
<br />CITY THROUGH FORECLOSURE OF PAVING AND SEWER LIENS, AND WAS INFORMED THAT THERE WAS NOW A TOTAL
<br />OF $726.28 IN ASSESSMENTS ACCUMYLATED AGAINST_ THIS PROPERTY.
<br />THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT MR. VENN'S OFFER OF $660.00 FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY
<br />I BE REJECTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
<br />
<br />I T WAS'MOVED B'{ MR-. SHE ARER' AND SECONDED BY MRS. tjl'-URIS' Tf:lA TI TEM 9 OF ,THE COMM I TTEE REPORT
<br />BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED.
<br />
<br />A REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE MEETING HELD AUGUST IS, 1960.
<br />PRESENT: MAYOR CONE; COUNCILMEN SHEARER, MOLHOLM, CHATT, MOYER, WILSON AND SWANSON; CITY
<br />MANAGER; CITY RECORDER; CITY ATTORNEY; CITY ENGINEER; SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION; MRS.
<br />~ NIVEN OF-THE-PLANNING COMMISSIO~; MR. A~ MRS~ ANDERSON;:MR. EASTON; DAN WYAWT OF THE EUGENE REGISTER-
<br />.., GUARD. COUNCILMEN MCGAFFEY AND LAURS WERE ABSENT.
<br />
<br />o I. RECONSIDERATION OF REQUEST Fffi REZONING THE EAST 1/2 BLOCK OF BLOCK I, MELROSE ADDITION,
<br />'LocATEb ON THE WEST SIDE OF W)LLAMETTE' STREET BETWEEN 24TH AVENUE AND 24TH PLA~E, ENTERED BY McDANIEL- I
<br />KNUTSEN - ANDERSON - REQUEST FOR ZONE CHANGE FROM R-I TO C:'3P. THE PLANN I I'-G' COMM I SS I ON RECONS I DERED
<br />THIS MATTER AT A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND REAFFIRMED ITS
<br />ORIGINAL REPORT THAT THE AREA BE REZONED TO R-2. THERE WAS GENERAL DISCU?SION ON THIS SUBJECT,
<br />PARTICULARLY AS TO THE LIMITATIONS WHICH MIGHT BE PLACED ON COMMERCIAL ZONING, IF THIS AREA WERE TO
<br />BE REZONED TO C:-'3P AS~:RE:QUE\STE:o:;!:,~,:;Fo,LIl:OW,rNG;~SOME:COf.fS!IIDERABt.JE;:Co-I,SG'US:STONIJ, IN WH I CH MEMBERS OF THE
<br />COMMITTEE WERE HEARD, AS WELL AS MR. AND MRS. ANDERSON, A VOTE WAS TAKEN WHICH RESULTED IN A TIE,
<br />WITH MR. MOLHOLM, MR. CHATT AND MR. WILS~N VOTING AYE AND MR. SHEARER, MR. MOYER AND MR. SWANSON
<br />VOTING NO, AND WITH THE MAYOR ABSTAINING.
<br />FOLLOWING THE VOTE THERE WAS. SOME DISCUSSION AS TO HOW FAR NORTH BUSINESS ZONING MI~T BE
<br />ALLOWED, AND THERE WAS GENERAL CONCURRENCE THAT 24TH STREET SHOU~D BE THE DIVIDI~G LlNE, BUT THAT
<br />THIS WOULD NOT BE DEFINITELY ESTABLISHED AT THIS TIME.
<br />I M~. MOYER STATED THAT HE WAS IN FAVOR OF GRANTING A VARIANCE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE PARTIES RE~
<br />QUESTING REZONING TO SUBMIT A PLAN SHOWING THE INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY. MR. JOLSON SPOKE IN
<br />FAVOROFMAINTAIN;NG-tHE ZONE SiNCE THERE',S A CONsiDERABLE NUMBER OF EXPENSIVE HOMES IN THE AREA
<br />WHICH WOULD BE DEPRECIATED IF COMMERCIAL ZON(firnGqwERE ALLOWED. MR. ANDERSON, ONE OF THE PARTIES
<br />REQUESTING THE REZONING, STATED THAT HE ~AS QUITE FRUSTRATED AND OVER A PERDD OF 10 YEARS HAD ENDEAVORED
<br />TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF WHAT TO DO ~ITH HIS PROPERTY, SI,NCE HE CANNOT DISPOSE OF IT FOR RESIDENTIAL
<br />PURPOSES AND CANNOT OBTAIN REZONING IN ORDER THAT IT COULD BE USED FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE.
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER AND SECONDED BY MR. MOYER THAT THE REZONING BE REFUSED AND THAT IT
<br />~ BE SUGGESTED TO THE PERSONS REQUESTING THE REZONING THAT THEY DEVELOP PLANS SHOWING THE INTENDED USE
<br />
<br />
<br />....
<br />
|