|
<br />ICouiicilman Murray asked if the requiremen t for compliance would resul t.. in d~rnC!l} -: ".r
<br />!tion o.f buildings~ Bob Tho.mas, ERA, 'ans~ered that demolition was practicall~ c6m~1
<br />:plete in the project area. This requirement was more for the purpose,':.of facilitat-i
<br />e ing rehabili tation. i
<br />
<br />Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Heal to adopt an ordinance setting a :
<br />compliance date of January 1976 for 'completion ,of rehabilitation work in r
<br />the downtown renewal project, and directing staff to draft an ordina.nce Comm
<br />and schedule a1]public hearing. 7/17/74
<br />. r! f . ,
<br />./ ' ' . Pub' flrn
<br />!councilwoman Beal asked how many ownerships were involved in the buildings remain~: g
<br />I '
<br />! ing. to be rehabili ta t, ed. Manager sai d tha t informa tion could be:?obtained; he said '\
<br />
<br />:he.could identify a couple of eases where two buildings were in one ownership.
<br />I
<br />
<br />~, "Vote was taken on the motion' as st~ted. Motion carried unanimously ~ I
<br />
<br />l ..., -- ,.O'.. " ", ......__.. ......'.. __ u_ _'._ '-, '....' .u,' __..____.___-'-'~-----_.,-, ,",' _l
<br />
<br />Manager reviewed the need for setting a deadline for rehabilitation of buildings in the
<br />downtown renewal area as set out in committee minutes above.
<br />
<br />,. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
<br />
<br />Council Bill No. 630 -Setting January 1, 1976 for completion of building
<br />rehabilitation in Downtown Renewal Project was read
<br />the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council-
<br />4It man present requesting that it be read in full.
<br />
<br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the second time by
<br />council bill number only with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be
<br />considered at this time. Mation carried unanimously, and the bill was read the second
<br />time by counci~ bill number only.
<br />
<br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final
<br />passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present
<br />the bill was declared passed and numbered 17150. '
<br />
<br />(0864) III - Items to be acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested.
<br />Previously discussed in committee on July,24, .1974 (Present: Council members Williams,
<br />(presiding), Beal, Campbell, Murray, and Wood) and July 31, 1974 (Present: Mayor
<br />Anderson; Council members Hershner, Beal, Campbell, Murray, and Wood.) Minutes of
<br />those meetings are printed below in italics.
<br />
<br />A. !Petition, Paving alley between Willamette and Oak from l3th,to 14th - Peti- -
<br />!tioned by owners of 65% of property to be assessed. Viewed by Council members
<br />Ion tour. '
<br />i
<br />
<br />_ I Mr. Woo.d moved seco.nded by Mr. Murray to' 'accept the petitio.n. :
<br />- I .:
<br />! Councilwoman Beal asked for a listing of properties abutting the alley to de- .
<br />I termine whether they were owner-occupied dwellings or rentals. Also to see !
<br />~ which ones were represented on the petition. Manager pointed out on a map ,
<br />! those properties represented on the petition'and said a list showing rentals
<br />l, and owner-occupied properties wo.uld be prepared for Council information: Comm
<br />I 7/24/74
<br />1 Vote was taken on the motion to accept the peti tion. Motion carried Approve
<br />i unanimousl y.
<br />
<br />I., .;..,... u..'.....'......'u,...__...,... ........'...." ,,,,"__'." "'_ "."" _,."." ~._.. "''',.'' ~...-,.._---..-.....
<br />
<br />Manager in answer to. questian raised when Council toured the area said there was one
<br />owner:"'occupied property abutting the alley improvement. The occupant was an elderly
<br />lady who undoubtedly would be eligible for assessment deferral under the proposed
<br />hardship defereal pragram. Also, he said, there was a gaod possibility because of
<br />her health that she would be facing the passibility of selling the property and
<br />moving someplace where she could receive the care she needs. So although the property
<br />would be subject to assessment there appeared to be alternatives available to that
<br />property owner.
<br />'. ,
<br />
<br />B Pedicab Service, Downtown Mall - Copies of letter from Genevieve Davenport
<br />. I ' '
<br />~ irequesting permission to operate a pedicab service within the downtown mall
<br />.., iarea were previously distributed to Council members. Managef referred to
<br />'.~' \Council action in June 1971 giving permission to Gary Dutel1.to operate a \
<br />Ishuttle bus service in the mall which did not materialize. He said this
<br />lseemed to be a similar service and while there were technical questions
<br />!raised about allowing this service and prohibiting bicycles o.n the mall he i
<br />jcould see no problems and thought it 'might be worth a trial. Bob Thomas, ERA, \
<br />said it had not been discussed by that agency. .
<br />
<br />!.., ,.' __, __ _ ," ''''',' ___,. _.' .,. ".._'" u .._..,.., ,...,'-,.,____,....____ ,..... .. ...., --,,'.' --.,
<br />
<br />8/12/74 - 11
<br />284
<br />
|