|
<br />,
<br />
<br />-,,,,-,
<br />
<br />J,,,,<.'c "
<br />
<br />':. !;;.'._,;--~~,.
<br />
<br />.-' _ r.., '.-" - ;-~l:."-<;.
<br />
<br />2. Rezone<from RA to R-2areq.~Vieit"of'Q~,Patch,~Road andcs:0),l,f:!L,of,,15th~,<J.\venuE;l(Mlkins)
<br />Frank "Bonson, speaking for the petitioner, Jack Adkins, said it was hi's understanding
<br />the Planning Commission recommended R-2 PD zoning rather than denial of R-2.
<br />
<br />Manager explained the area is now zoned RA, but the Commission approved, and the Council
<br />~n lf967 g2ave fir~tf rheading t?lan hord1d'nanhce for, R-2dPD.zoning. H: said the request now 4It
<br />1S or R- , and 1 t e Counc1 up 01 s t e recommen at10n and den1es that request, then
<br />final reading could be given the ordinance held for zoning R-2 PD if the applicant
<br />wishes to develop the property under planned unit development procedures.
<br />
<br />Mr. .Bonson said when the R-2 PD was approved before, the financing for the development
<br />fell through before the necessary planning steps could be completed. He said the plans
<br />of the present developer are very close to those under the PD zoning. He said R-2 is
<br />requested because of the time element, and claimed that although there is nothing in
<br />the zoning ordinances requiring development under PUD requirements, they are forced to
<br />go R-2 PD.
<br />
<br />Manager said the property may now be developed in single-family density or can be de-
<br />veloped to greater density allowed under R-2 PD, but it is fel t the PD controls are
<br />necessary to ensure a satisfactory type development. In answer to Councilman McDonald,
<br />Jim Saul, Planning Department, said the original owner received preliminary approval of
<br />the development but his contract to purchase had expired and no development occurred,
<br />hence the rezoning was not completed.
<br />
<br />In answering Mrs. Beal, Manager said Planning Commission based its recommendation for
<br />denial on the desirability for the kinds of controls and design requirements mandatory
<br />under planned unit development to accommodate densities which would be available to the
<br />developed were it zoned R-2.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Teague to uphold the Planning Commission
<br />recommendation to deny the rezoning request. Motion carried unanimously.
<br />
<br />E. Annexation Approved - Planning Commission Report March 13, 1972
<br />2.25 acres between Railroad Boulevard and River Road east 0f Southern Pacific tracks
<br />(Holeman )
<br />
<br />Resolution No. 2040 - Initiating boundary change and transmitting to Boundary
<br />Commission request to annex 2.25 acres on Railroad Boulevard and River Road
<br />east of Southern Pacific Raiir.oad (Holeman) was submitted.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Teague to adopt the resolution. Motion carried
<br />unanimously.
<br />
<br />F. Bid Opening:: Public Works - April 4, 1972
<br />
<br />Project & Name of Bidder
<br />SANITARY SEWER
<br />Brewer Avenue from Gilham Road
<br />to Norkenzie Road (654)
<br />Charles H. Lyons
<br />Kenneth R. Bostick Construction
<br />Wildish Construction Co. '
<br />Shur-Way Contractors
<br />
<br />Contract
<br />Cast
<br />
<br />Cost to
<br />Abutting
<br />Property
<br />
<br />Cost to
<br />City
<br />
<br />Amount
<br />Budgeted
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />$
<br />Co.
<br />
<br />3,973.90
<br />4,210.00
<br />5,236.00
<br />5,830.26
<br />
<br />Lat.
<br />Levy
<br />Serv
<br />Extend
<br />
<br />0.0287 $486.25
<br />o .005 (Dfrd
<br />156.17 (6) Assmnt)
<br />79 . 20 (5)
<br />
<br />(Engr.Est. )
<br />$4,356.00
<br />
<br />Serv
<br />
<br />Completion Date: June 1, 1972
<br />
<br />Public ,Works Department recommended award of contract to the low bidder.
<br />
<br />In answer to Councilman McDonald, Public Works Director explained that the low bidder,
<br />Charles H. Lyons, is a small-scale contractor and although the bid is lower than the
<br />engineers' estimate, it is considered a good bid.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Teague to award the contract to the low bidder. Rollcall
<br />vote. All councilmen present voting aye, motion carried.
<br />
<br />II - Items Considered With One Motion. Previously discussed at committee meetings on March 29
<br />and April 5, 1972. Minutes of those meetings appear below printed in italics.
<br />
<br />A. Bureau of Governmental Research Funding - Councilman williams referred to HPUP' s
<br />(University of Oregon Hearing Panel on University Priorities) recommendation to
<br />discontinue funding for the Bureau of Government'i!il Research, saying he thinks
<br />,the Bureau is of great benefit to cities of Oregon and is something in which the
<br />University should be involved. He moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that a resolution
<br />be prepared urging Dr. Clark, president of the University, to retain funding of
<br />the Bureau of Governmental Research. Morion carried, Mr. Mohr and Mrs. Campbell
<br />abstaining.
<br />
<br />'.
<br />
<br />'J(ft'
<br />CJ ,,}
<br />
<br />Comm
<br />3/29/72
<br />Approve
<br />
<br />Ll./7n/7? _ ~
<br />
|