|
<br />~.'
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />If
<br />
<br />.'
<br />
<br />l\
<br />~-
<br />
<br />at present inflationary costs would be more than the property owners could meet.
<br />IMs. Davis said those living at the north end of the street petitioned the project
<br />i and she and her neighbors owning properties at the south end could see no need
<br />: for it. \.
<br />
<br />Councilman Williams asked if staff would consider paving half of Golden Gardens Street.,
<br />Public Works Director said that removing the first block (at the south end) would
<br />leave much more than half to pave, and the contract would have to be renegotiated. He I
<br />said there was the possibility of withdrawing the contract, maintaining the unit bid,
<br />;however, terms of the contract call for rebidding if it was not awarded on the bid
<br />basis. He said the project was initiated by a 50.5% petition, 23% were protest~ng.
<br />Manager added that those protesting lived at the south end of the street and removal
<br />of that block from the p:'oj ect would leave an unpaved gap between the paved portion
<br />,and B~ger Dr~ve, scheduled for improvement next year.
<br />
<br />:Ralph Hansen, 2615 Tandy Turn; John A. Fer-t:.?-l, 1040 Corydon Lane; and Leo Kappenman,
<br />'1885 Pierce Street objected to paving Corydon Lane in the Forrester Way, Tandy Turn
<br />area,. Mr. Hansen said thos-:e petitioning it did not need it for access and that the
<br />;paving would serve no purpose. He said when the petition was circulated it was with
<br />.the intent of learning the cost of the paving, not for the actual construction. In
<br />,answer to Councilman Williams, Public Works Director said that none of the owners
<br />;of abutting properties was in favor of the project.
<br />
<br />:-'-' Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to award contracts to the low bidders
<br />on Projects 1 and 2, and Projects 4 through 11 as recommended, with the contract
<br />on Project 10 (English Oaks Subdivision) held pending confirmation of payment
<br />for paving abutting property outside the city. A rollcall vote was taken with
<br />all councilmen~; voting aye, except Mr. Woods who was not present.
<br />
<br />II - Items acted upon with one motion after discuss~on,_of individual items if requested.
<br />Previously discussed in. co:mrnitt~e on May 8, .1974 (Pres~nt: 'Mayor AndersoD;:c'eouncTi ~__
<br />members Williams, MCEJonald, :Beal ;.:Campbel1 ,:C-Keirer.~ :::-Mtirray; ,- and 'Wood) - and on May 15, 1974
<br />(Present: Mayor Anders'on; Council membe~s Williams, Hershner, McDonald, Beal, Campbell,
<br />Keller, Murray, and Wood). Minutes of those meetings are printed b~low in italics.
<br />
<br />A. :Speeds, South Willamette between 29th and 40th - Councilwoman Campbell referred
<br />. . to recent accident on this stretch of road resul ting in a fa tali ty and asked
<br />:about the procedure for changing speed limits. Don Allen, director of Public
<br />, IWorks,explained the procedure of preliminary investigation by his department,
<br />"referral to the State Speed Control Board, etc. He said that results of studies
<br />"by his department were not as a rule brought back to the Council before referral
<br />,to the State unless the investigation indicated the existing limit was proper and!
<br />,should not be referred. He said that the recent accident did raise questions
<br />with regard to the pedestrian way in the process of being restudied for permanent
<br />sidewalks on the west side of Willamette, but investigation showed it was not the
<br />cause of the accident, rather speed far in excess of the limit was responsible.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to investigate speeds on
<br />Willamette between 29th and 40th.Mo~J--qll-,:;g.,n::Le-,l.!lna.!!i11lQl.!~J.y..
<br />
<br />B.
<br />
<br />Comm
<br />5/5/?>/r74
<br />^ !.';
<br />Highway 99N, south of conca>l5~~e
<br />
<br />Reconsideration of Hansen Rezoning Request (west of
<br />east of Jacobs - From RA to C-2 PD - Z 7476)
<br />f'eti tion was received from Robert Moulton, attorney for Paul Hansen, requesting
<br />'reconsideration of his request for rezoning property near IED development west of ,
<br />Highway 99N on the basis of new testimony which he felt would support the public
<br />'need for the change of zone.
<br />
<br />;Stan Long, assistant city attorney, reviewed procedural alternatives available
<br />to the Council. He said if a motion was' made to reopen the issue, testimony
<br />previously presented could be reconsidered or the applic~nt could be permitted to
<br />introduce new evidence. In dealing with this type of question, courts feel they
<br />:inherently have the power to reopen a matter if there is some reason - e~ample,
<br />!a pet;itioner reports evidence which he did not pre~ent! or new evid~nce that had
<br />,been found. Courts usually respond by requesting a general descrpt~on of the
<br />'evidence to be presented without actually receiving the evidence. Then a deci-
<br />'sion is made on whether reopening would be substantially fair and just under
<br />'the circumst;ances. Mr. Long added that the Council at this' point could limi t
<br />ithe applical)t to the type of addi tional evidence. and why he thinks it is now
<br />appropriat;e to present it. If reopening is permitt;ed, he said, it; wouLd have
<br />to be at a duly not;ed public hearing.
<br />
<br />;Councilman williams asked if the issue was ,reopened and new evidence heard whethe~
<br />a decision would then have t;o be made to reconsider, or would there have to be a '
<br />'formal motion for reconsideration concomitant to reopening. Mr. UJng answered
<br />;that reopening t;he issue would negate the previous decision (denying rezoning);
<br />!the hearing would be reopened to take new testimony and to make a new decision
<br />Iwhich may be the same as before or a different one.
<br />
<br />io.
<br />
<br />- -~....-------------~-- ---..-~~-- --
<br />
<br />\(0\
<br />
<br />5(20/~4 - .13
<br />
|