|
<br />~i96
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />3/27/61
<br />
<br />II
<br />
<br />I'
<br />!I
<br />
<br />SOME DISCUSSION WAS HAD ON THE WIDENING OF PATTERSON STREET AS WELL:AS THE OTHER STREETS
<br />MENTIONED. BETWEEN 11TH AND 13TH AVENUES. QUESTIONS WERE'-ASKr"O REGARDING TH'ESTATE HIGH-
<br />WAY DEPA'RTMENT RECOMMENDATION ON. THE WIDENI-NG OF THESE STREETS AND DIScLisSION.WA-S-HAD
<br />ON THE BRIDGE AND HEIGHT OF BRIDGES IN THIS PARTICULAR AR-EA.FoLLOWING THE DIS'cLisSION
<br />IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT-A 'STUDY BE MADE, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY MANAGER AND
<br />STAFF ESTABLISH PRIORITIES FOR THESE PROJECTS, AND THAT THEY ALSO CONSIDER THE HEIGHT OF
<br />BRIDGES IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED BY MRS4 LAURIS SECONDED BY MR~ MOLHOLM THAT ITEM 4 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE APPROVED.
<br />MOTION CARRIED.
<br />
<br />I II
<br />
<br />5. LEGAL OPINION REGARDING UNCOMPLETED BUILDING OR DEMOLITION OF BU.lLDINGS .- A LEGAL OPIN-
<br />ION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE CONCERNING POSSIBLE REQUIRE-.
<br />MENTS FOR THE DEMOLITION OF A BUILDING WITHIN A SPECIFIED TIME WHERE PERMIT IS REQUESTED
<br />FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR SUCH DEMOtl.TIO.~ AND POSSIBLE RE!QUIREMENTS FOR THE COM-
<br />PLETION OF A BUILDING WiTHIN SOME SPECiFIED TIME.
<br />
<br />THE,CITY ATTORNEY P01NTED OUT THAT UNDER THE POLICE POWER PF THE CITY AND WHERE A BUILD-
<br />ING- IS DOWNTOWN AN~ THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE CITIZENS. OF THE CITY ARE AFFECTED AND
<br />~ITH OTHER SPECIFIC PREREQUISITES, THE CITY MIGHT REQUIRE SPEEDY COMPLETION OF JHE DEMOLI-
<br />TION. IF, HOWEVER, VEHICULAR OR PEDESTRIAN-TRAFFIC WAS N.OT BEING. INTERFERED ~ITH THEN THE
<br />CITY ATTORNEY QUESTIONED JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUiRING ANY PARTICULAR LIMITATION O~ TIME IN
<br />WHICH IT MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />THE C'TY ATTORNEY ALSO DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT MUNICIPALITIES HAVE POLICE POWER TO RE-
<br />QUIRE THE ABATEMENT IN DESTRUCTION_ OF A BUILDING WHICH IS A_ NUISANCE. HE DEFINED A
<br />NUISANCE AS BEING A BUILDING OR CONDITION THAT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY
<br />AND WELFARE. THE CITY ATTORNEY ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE CITY HAS AN ORDINANCE AND PRO-
<br />GRAM I"" THE.c I TY- WH I CH HAS BEEN I N. USE A NUMBER OF YEARS AND. BY. WH.I CH. A NUMBER: OF Bul LD-
<br />INGS HAVE BEEN ABATED.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />I! '
<br />
<br />WITH REGARD-TO THE SECOND_ QUESTION REGARDING THE_.COMP.LETIO.N OF BU.ILDINGS WITHIN A SPECI-
<br />F I ED T I ME, THE ATTORNEY REPORTED THAT HE .HAD RESEARCHED TH I.S AND. THAT TH_E CI TY AJ PRESENT
<br />HAS AN ORDINANCE WHICH REQUIRES A BUILDI,NG TO BE. STARTED. WITHIN.A SPECIFIC PERIOD OF TIME,
<br />THAT IT MAY: NOT BE SUSPEND.ED NOR ABANDON_ED AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED FOR A
<br />PERIOD OF 120.DAYS, AND IF SO, A NE.W P_ERMIT'HAS TO BE ISSUED, :BUT THAT HE. CAN FIND NOTHING
<br />THAT WOULD PERM LT THE CITY. TO. ABATE OR TEAR DOWN A PART I ALL Y. CONSTRU,CTED :BU ILD ING,.
<br />
<br />FOR THIS REASON THEN IT WAS THE ATTORNEY'S OPINION THAT UNLESS AN UNCOMPLETED BUILDING
<br />WAS DELAP IOATED- TO SUCH AN EXT.ENT THAT- I T CREATED A PUBU C .HAZARD OR WAS A THREAT TO THE
<br />PUBLIC SAFETY OR WELFARE AND NOT ~UST BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT WAS AN EYESORE PR DID.
<br />NOT PRESENT AN AESTHETIC APPEARANCE, THE CITY WOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ABATE, CON-
<br />DEMN AND. REQU ':RE THE :DEST~UCT I ON OF SUCH AN UNCOMPLETED BU I LD I NG.
<br />
<br />SOME DISCUSSION WAS HAD o'N THIS, AND THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THIS MATTER BE HELD OVER
<br />UNT I L THE NEXT COMM I TTEE MEET ING. No FORMAL _ACT ION .WAS TAKEN BUT NO OB~.ECT IONS WERE HEARD.
<br />
<br />I T WAS MOVED BY MRS. LAUR I SSECONDED BY MR. CHATT THAT ITEM 5 :OF THE C9MM I TTEEREPORT!3 BE RECE I VED AND
<br />PLACED ON FILE. MOTION CARR'IED.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />2 "
<br />I
<br />
<br />6. PETITION FOR SANITARY SEWER ON VANBUREN STREET FROM 3RD TO 2ND AVENUE - THIS PETITiON
<br />CONTAINED SIGNATURES OF OWNERS OF 50% OF THE PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED, AND THE ~OMM1TTEE
<br />RECOMMENDE'o THIS SEWER BE INSTALLED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED BY MRS. LAURIS SECONDED BY MR. MOLHOLM THAT ITEM.6 'OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT ~E A~PROVED.
<br />MOTION CARRIED.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />3
<br />
<br />. 7. PETITION fOR ~AVING AND SANITARY_SEWERS I~ EDGEWOOD ESTATES, SECTIONS I AND 2 - THESE
<br />PETITIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. J. T. BREEDEN, PRESIDENT OF BREEDEN BROTHERS, INC., FOR ,
<br />PAVING AND SEWER WORK WERE PRESENTED AS WAS AN ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF BOTH
<br />S~CTIONS. WITH.REGARD TO,SECTION I, THE .ESTIMATE O~ TH~ AMOUNT OF CITY PARTICIPATiON
<br />FOR STORM SEWERS WAS $68,800 AND FOR SANI~AmY SEWERS, $i6,~06~ FOR'A TOTAi 6F $7~,000.
<br />FOR SECTION II, CITY PARTICIPATION FOR STORM SEWERS, .$1.-2,700; FOR SANITARY SEWERS, $1;"700;
<br />FOR A TOTAL OF .$14,400.' MR. BReEDEN APPEARED' BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AND e;XPLA'INED A ,MAP
<br />SHOWING THOSE AREAS WHICH HAD BEEN REQUESTED FOR ADDITIONAL WORK. HE INDICATED IT WOULD
<br />REQUIRE APPROXIMATELY 100 LOTS FOR HIM.TO CONTINUE HIS OPERATION !=,OR THE NEXT YEAR, THAT
<br />THE UTILITIES WHICH HAD TO BE INSTALLED HAD TO BE OF SUFFICIENT CAPACITY TQ ~ERVE THE AREA
<br />TO THE WEST WHICHJS NOW UNDEVELOPED I~ SECTION I, AND IN SECTION It lHAT A LARGER .
<br />UTI-LITY IS NECESSARY.TO' SERVE THE AREA TO SPENCER BUTTE. IT ALSO REQUIRED LARGER UTILI-
<br />TIES WHERE SECTIONS I AND I I COME TOGETHER. MR. BREEDEN INDICATED THAT HIS FIRM CON-
<br />STRUCTED APPROXIMATELY ONE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS IN HOMES IN THE LAST YEAR, AND
<br />THAT THIS OPERATION ADDED LARGELY TO THE ECONOMU OF THE AREA BY CREWS OF MEN, BY EM-
<br />PLOYMENTOF SUB-CONTRACTORS, BY THE PURCHASE OF BUILDING MATERIALS, AND OTHER ITEMS
<br />WHICH THE HOME OWNER PURCHASES WHEN HE MOVES INTO A ,NEW HOME.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />DISCUSSION WAS HAD ON THIS AMONG MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT
<br />TO THIS TIME A LARGE PORTION OF THE STORM SEWER MONEY HAS BE~N GOING TO NEW:AREAS WITH
<br />THE OLDER AREAS OF THE CITY GETTrNG LITTLE OR NONE, THAT THE CITY HAD BEEN RECLAIMING
<br />LAND FOR SUB-DIVIDERS AND APPRECIATING THE VALUE OF THE LAND SO RECLAIMED. DISCUSSION
<br />WAS HAD WITH REGARD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S IDEAS ON THIS MATTER, AND 'TWAS 'NDI-
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />~
<br />
|