03/12/1956 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~04 e I I. PAVING HARRIS STREET rROM 32NO TO 35TH AVENUES - THE'CITY MANAGER EXPLAINED THAT THE SUBDIVIDERS OF THIS AREA DESIRED THE STREET IMPROVED~ I IT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE C~MMITTEE THAt THE NECESSARY ORDINANCES INITIATING THE I MPROVEMENT OF HARRI S STREET rROM 32NO TO 35TH AVENUES' BE 'PASSED. 12. PAVING PATTERSON COURT rROM 38TH TO 39TH AVENUES - THE CITY MANAGER EXPLAINED THAT THE SUBDIVIDERS OF THIS AREA DESIRED THE STREET IMPROVED. IT WAS THE RECOMMENDATioN OF THE COMMITTEE THAT THE NECESSARY ORDINANCES INITIATING THE IMPROVEMENT or PATTERSON COURT rROM 38TH TO 39TH AVENUES BE PASSED. 13. PAVING WEST BROADWAY rROM GARrlELD TO McKINLEY STREETS - THE COMMITTEE DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED PAVING or THIS AREA WHICH WOULD SERVE T~E PRopbstD "NDUSTRIAL~AREA'AN6 RECOMMENDED THAT-THE 'NECEjS~RY ORDINANCES INITIAtiNG THE IMPROVEMENT OF WEST BROADWAY FROM GARrlELD TO McKINLEY STREETS BE PASSED. e 14. PAVING 25TH AVENUE FROM MADISON TO MONRoe StREETS ~ THE CI'TY 'MANAGE~EipLAINED THAT A PETITION HAD 'BEEN RECEIVED CONTAINi'NG 58.33 PER CENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP"TO BE ASSESSED FOR THE PAVING OF 25TH AVENUE FROM MADISON TO MONROE STREETS, THAT THE CO~NCll HAD TAKEN ACTION AT THEIR MEETING ON FEBRUARY 27, 1956 60 ASK THE PETITIONERS TO CIRCULATE A PETI nON TO ADD AN ADDI TI ONAL BLOCKT,c) THE. EAST OR TO THE -WEST, BUT THAT 'TOTHI S 'DATE THE PETI "/'1 ON HAS BEEN 'UNSUc'CEssrUL.THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED-'THAT THE NECESSARY ORDI'NANCES BE PASSED INITIATING THE IMPROVEMENT OF 25TH AVENUE FROM MADISON TO MONROE STREETS. ' I 15. PAVI NG 7TH AVENUE rROM GARFI ELD TO McKI NLE'Y STREETS - THE COMMI TTEE 01 SCUSSED THE PROPOSED PAVING or THIS AREA WHICH WOULD SERVE THE PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AREA AND RECOMME~,iDED THAT THE NECESSARY ORDI NANCES I NI TI"ATI'NG THE I MPRO.iEMENT OF 7THI AVENUE FROM GARr I ELO' TO McK INLEY STREETS BE PASSED. 16. REQUEST rOR ALLEY VACATION BETWEEN 7TH 'AND 8TH AVENUES FROM BlAI R' BOULEVARD T'O MONROE STREET BY HENNEN, AND Vas PuaMBI NG - THE COMMI'TTEE AGA I N TOOK UP THE MATTER or THE VACATION or THE ALLEY BETWEEN 7TH AND 8TH AVENUES FROM BLAIR BOULEVARD TO MONROE STREET. THE CITY MANAGER INDICATED HE HAD RECEIVED COMMUNICATIONS rROM THE PAClrlcTELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY AND THE EUGENE WATER AND ELECTRI'C BOARD WHICH STATED THIS ALLEY IS USED BY BOTH CONCERNS FOR THE STRING~N~ OF WIRES-AND TELEPHONE AND ELECTRICAL FACILI:TIES AND THAT THE VACATION or THE ALLEY WOULD PRESENT A PROBLEM IN THE MAINTENANCE OF rACILITIES IN AND BEYOND THIS AREA. MR. BRYANT, AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, WAS HEARD AND HE OBJECTED T6 TH~ CLOSING OF THIS ALLEY INDICATING THAT THE ALLEY IS USED FOR VEHICLE COMMUNICATION. A MOTION WAS MADE THAT THE APPLICATION BE DENIED AND THAT A LETTE~ BE SENT TO HENNEN AND VOS NOTlrYING THEM THAT THEY SHOULD CLEAN UP THE' EXISTING ALLEY IMMEDIATELY. IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS MOTION BE CONTINUED rOR TWO WEEKS. , I 17. OrrER B~ PACIFIC BUILDERS, INCORPORATED lCOMMERCE tNV~STMENT, INCORPOR~TED) rOR TWO LOTS or CITY OWNED PROeERTY - THE OrFER BY PACIFIC BUILDERS, INCORPORATED TO PURCHASE LOT 19, BLOCK 6, STOREY'S SUBDI'VISION TO COLLEGE CREST ADDITION W~S-CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE BUT, AFTER DISCUSS210NilT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT' PACIFIC BUILDERS, INCORPORATED, BE NOTIFIED THAT THE COUNCIL IS ~OT WILL)NG TO SELL THIS ~NE LOT BUT TH~T THEIR orrER PREVIOUSLY MADE FOR THE SALE or TWO LOTS, BEING LOT 12, BLOCK 5 AND LOT 19, BLOCK 6, STOREY'S SUBDIVISION TO COLLEGE CREST.. ADDITION,' LOOATED ONJ~CKSON STREET BETWEEN 24TH AND 26TH AVENUES STILL STANDS. ' I. , I 18. COMMUNI CATION FROM CORNELL, HOWLAND, HAYES AND ME'RRYFI (LD REGARDI NG THE':METROPOLI TAN SEWER SURVEY - THE CITY MANAGER EXPLAINED THAT CORNELL, HOWLAND, HAYES AND MERRYFIELD HAD REPLIED TO THE REQUEST rOR A QUOTATION ON THE BRINGING UP TO DATE or THE METROPOLITAN SEWER SURVEY WITH REFERENCE TO',THE OAKWAY WATER DISTRICT, THE RIVER ROAE1 AREA,' AND THE BETHEL AREA, AND HAD INDICATED THAT THE COST or SUCH A SURV~Y WOULD BE $840.00. e THE EN.INEERiNG WO~K THEY wotiLD PROPOSE TO DO WOUL~ BE ~EVIEW THE PREVIOUS PLANS, MAKING SUCH CHANGES AS ~OULD APPEAR DESIRABLE AT THIS TIME;' PREPARE PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR BOTH GRAVI TY SEWER COLLE'CTlON SYSTEM AND RAW SEWAGE PUMPI NG FAClll tl ES TO COLLECT AND TRANSPORT THE SEWAGE rROM'THESE AREAS TO THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT; ESTIMATE ,THE ADDED POPULATIO~ WHICH CAN BE SERVED BY THE EXISTING SEWAGE T~EATMEN~ PLANT FACILITIES; PREPARE UP TO DATE CONSTRUCT~ON COST ESTIMATES AND REPORi SUCH RESULTS TO THE COMMON COUNCIL INCLUDING ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS. THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY ENGINEER PURSUE THIS SUBJECT SO THAT A ~IRM CONTRACT C~ULD BE SUBMITTE6 TO THr COMMITTEE AN~ THE COUNCIL FOR THEIR ACTION. I e ~