Laserfiche WebLink
, March 10,1971 <br /> 15 days-after date of mailing by registered mail or cer <br /> tified mail of notice of the herein described <br /> rett <br /> those named <br /> CouncilCity order lresoludlon; to each of <br />. said NOTICE OF UNSAFE N(o) a eoa(sl cf the <br /> unsafe ng(sl,structure(s),or portion(s)thereof <br /> described ill said NOTICE or owsnre BUILDING(S). <br /> Sectiod 3. The cetv of Everett Building Official <br /> directedhereby is authorized and to forthwith give notice <br /> of the herein described Everett Crty Council order(resol- <br /> onNOTICe SC(5)ain the.a erlsl ho described .. <br /> unsafe ng(s)OE UNSAFE ? relEAtb r portionG(sl thereof <br /> described "() 5 <br /> RESOLUTIONUnanimously carried <br /> Councilman Vognild- <br /> p n 4355asfollows; <br /> WHEREAS,the�` r g had eG n�,goo n <br /> March 11,1971,ad n Lawmen's Association ng <br /> WHEREAS,it is deed,.to be in the best interest of the City . <br /> of Everett that Officer Robert C.Case Department be horsed to said MMeeting,the tt police #g� <br /> NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY:DE CITY COUNCIL OF THE <br /> LI,. CITY OF EVERETT that the above-named be and the same is <br /> y authorlzed and i Oregon <br /> TTx, .II <br /> -boa. hin9ton sd4er '?3 <br /> Oregon March 11,1971,and that be be reimbursed for such <br /> be:- _ expenses as }}j <br /> . supported by receipts a.other verification. <br /> AGREEEE .; FE,. from the prosecuting Attorney's Office x - Nor ll <br /> is-Nation of Rockeleller Agreement an connection with the County <br /> e said this letter requested that the street be kept <br /> Wall Street exit to the Agriculture BuildIng and that , <br /> ea m,6rPe]EkeV kimalm 0,46 feet between the curbs-because.the'ramp I. 5 <br /> g a repair <br /> I <br /> County and that thethe t e <br /> Mr.Jones said that he was requesting 1,4 <br /> executed.as written and t <br /> following letter would accompany it. <br /> 4 V 11 <br /> fully 1971 request <br /> h width <br /> feet. srk <br /> that you consider feels that <br /> there <br /> will be swili£o on Wall e <br /> be properly a modatedbtasidew 4 feet <br /> 6 feet. Sidewalks and theCounty cCeTehould be <br /> full B widthet ythus it would <br /> Y4{. <br /> require naeexisting to the upper <br /> parking2)T encroaches n City right- <br /> ofa now icy heCity is t require <br /> removal c hi illiner ere with civice 1 meeting with thecso <br /> q s <br /> regardingae understanding <br /> that elimination of the ramP was not 6 grave Problem d 1 <br /> try theabsorb the loss ES parking <br /> sppace. <br /> affected. regard access from <br /> garage <br /> the b h the <br /> 191 9 understanding s <br /> designedmay be a 4e _street <br /> width. Your la sa fi s , <br /> upper ramp e could k ill f king <br /> (4) Increased <br /> trafficstreet justifies the <br /> standard4B-improvement. (5)Reversal ofh e-way <br /> , <br />