|
<br />~60,
<br />
<br />3/28/60
<br />
<br />'T WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR. MCGAFFEY THAT ITEMS I, 2, 3 AND 4 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT
<br />BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED.
<br />
<br />5. CONSIDERATION OF BOARD or ApPEALS REPORT - SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 16, 1960:
<br />A. REQUEST BY McDONALD CANDY COMPANY FOR WAiVER OF BUILDING CODE PROVISION REQUIRING AUTO-
<br />MATIC:~ SPRINKLER SYSTEM - THE BoARD OF ApPEALS REPORTED THAT THE McDONALD CANDY COMPANY
<br />, ,
<br />HAD REQUESTED A WAiVER OF THE BUILDING CODE PROVISIONS WHICH WOULD REQUIRE AN AUTOMATIC
<br />SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN THE PROPOSED NEW WAREHOUSE TO BE BUILT IN THE EUGENE DEVELOPMENT .
<br />CORPORATION AREA. THE BOARD ALSO REPORTED THEY HAD CONSIDERED. THE REQUEST, INDICA,TED ALL (,',C,
<br />OTHER INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS IN THE AREA HAD COMPLIED WITH THE CODE AND, WHERE NECESSARY,
<br />HAVE INSTALLED AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS. THE BOARD OF ApPEALS f"uRniER INDICATED THAT
<br />IF A VARIANCE OF THE PROVISION FOR SPRINKLER SYSTEM WERE GIVEN TO ONE INDIVIDUAL, IT
<br />SHOULD BE GRANTED TO ALL OTHERS MAKING SUCH A REQUEST; THE COSTIS SMALL IN COMPARISON TO
<br />THE COST OF THE TOTAL BUILDING; IT IS POSSIBL'E Foe McDoNALD CANDY COMP'ANY TO INSTALL A
<br />MASONRY BLOCK WALL WITH FIRE DOORS DIVIDING THE WAREHOUSE AREA WHICH WOULD THEN MEAN
<br />THAT NO AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM WOULD BE REQUIRED; AND THE AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER~STEM
<br />PROVIDES AN INEXPENSIVE 24-HOUR WATCHMEN SERVICE FOR THE OWNER OR OCCUPANT OF THE
<br />BUILDING.
<br />
<br />THE FIRE MARSHAL INDICATED ON QUESTION THAT HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A
<br />SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS UNREASONABLE, AND f"OLLOWING SOME DISCUSSION IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT
<br />THE REPORT Of THE BOARD Of" ApPEALS BE UPHELD DENYING THE McDONALD CANDY COMPANY REQUEST.
<br />MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
<br />
<br />2
<br />
<br />B. REQUEST ON BEHALF OF SCHLESINGER BUILDING AT BROADWAY AND OLIVE STREET f"OR WAIVER OF
<br />3 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM PROPERTY LINE ON ALLEY ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION TO THE
<br />PROPERTY LINE - 'T WAS REPORTED THAT THE BOARD Of" ApPEALS HAD CONSIDERED THIS ITEM
<br />AND HAD RECOMMENDED THAT THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE BE GRANTED. IT WAS FURTHER ,REPORTED
<br />THAT OTHER BUI'LDINGS IN THIS AREA HAD BEEN BUILT TO THE PROPERTY LINE. THE COMMITTEE
<br />AfTER CONSIDERATION RECOMMENDED THAT THE REPORT OF THE BOARD OF ApPEALS BE UPHELD GRANT-
<br />ING THE VARIANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
<br />
<br />'T WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR. MCGAFFEY THAT ITEMS 5A AND 5B OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE
<br />APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED.
<br />
<br />3
<br />
<br />6. RECONSIDERATION OF THE RENAMING OF CITY VIEW BOULEVARD IN HIGHLAND OAKS ADDITION - IT WAS
<br />EXPLAINED THAT THE, PLANNING COMMISSION HAD RECOMMENDED THAT THE PORTION Of" CITY VIEW BOULE-
<br />VARD EXTENDING fROM HAWKINS LANE ON THE WEST TO WILSON STREET ON THE EAST BE RENAMED 24TH
<br />AVENUE, AND THAT, THE PORTION OF CITY VIEW BOULEVARD rROM THE SOUTH END Of WILSON STREET
<br />AS PLATTED IN HIGHLAND OAKS SUBDIVISION ON THE SOUTH BE RENAMED WILSON STREET. AN OBJECTION
<br />HAD BEEN MADE BY OWNERS OF PROPERTY IN THIS AREA TO THE RENAMING Of THAT PORTION TO 24TH
<br />AVENUE. MR. BRYCE NOSLER, SUBDIVIDER OF HIGHLAND OAKS SUBDIVISION, APPEARED BEFORE THE
<br />COMMITTEE TO SHOW A ~AP OF THE W~OLE AREA, AND iT WAS FURTHER INDICATED iHAT 24TH AVENUE'
<br />WILL NOT CONNECT WITH THAT STREET CURRENTLY KNOWN AS CITY VIEW BOULEVARD AND THAT THE STREET
<br />NOW KNOWN AS CITY VIEW BOULEVARD, WHILE RUNNING GENERALLY EAST AND WEST, WILL FOLLOW THE
<br />CONTOUR Of THE HILL AND WILL NOT RUN IN EXACTLY A STRICT EAST/WEST DIRECTION. FOR THIS
<br />REASON IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THAT PORTION Of CITY VIEW BOULEVARD WHICH RUNS EAST AND
<br />WEST FROM WILSON STREET TO HAWKINS LANE BE RENAMED HIGHLAND OAKS DRIVE. THE COMMITTEE,
<br />AFTER CONSIDERATION, RECOMMENDED THAT CITY VIEW BOULEVARD BE RENAMED HIGHLAND OAKS DRIVE,
<br />FROM ,WILSON STREET TO HAWKINS LANE. MOTION CARRIED, MESSRS. MOLHOLMAND SWANSON VOTING NAY.
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR. MCGAFFEY THAT ITEM 6 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE APPROVED.
<br />MOTION CARRIED, MESSRS. MOLHOLM AND SWANSON VOTING NAY.
<br />
<br />4
<br />
<br />7. COUNCILMAN S~EARER SUGGESTED THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD STUDY THE REQUIREMENTS OF PARKING IN
<br />THE DOWNTOWN AREA TOWARD THE END THAT PARKING BE REQUIRED FOR ALL AREAS CLASSIFIED AS C-3
<br />IN WHICH NEW BUILDINGS ARE BEING CONSTRUCTED. THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED A RESTUDY Of THE
<br />PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TOWARD THE RECLASSIFICATION Of C-3 ZONE TO
<br />C-3P. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
<br />
<br />5
<br />
<br />e. DISCUSSION CONCERNING MATTER Of UO~TING SALVATION ARMY MISSION AND CHURCH IN AREA or 7TH
<br />AND 8TH AVENUES AND MONROE STREET - THIS MATTER WAS OPENED FOR DISCUSSION By 'THE MAYOR,
<br />AND MR. VICTOR LINDEEN, AN AREA RESIDENT, SPOKE ON BEHALF Of THE RESIDENTS OF THE AREA
<br />URGING THAT THE LOCATION OF MISSIONS BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TOWARD THE
<br />END THAT A PROPER LOCATION BE ESTABLISHED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR SUCH MISSIONS.
<br />MR. 'LINDEEN STATED THAT THERE IS'NO GENERAL OPPOSITION TO THE SALVATION ARMY, THERE IS
<br />NO OPPOSITION TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHURCH IN THE AREA, BUT THAT PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED
<br />WITH THE PROPOSED MISSION AND CHURCH OF THE SALVATION ARMY AND WHAT EFFECT 1T WILL HAVE
<br />ON SURROUNDING PROPERTY.
<br />
<br />MRS. THOMPSON, ALSO AN AREA RESIDENT, INDICATED SHE DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE CHURCH, DOES
<br />NOT OBJECT TO WELFARE WORK, BUT DOES OBJECT TO THE POSSIBILITY OF TRANSIENTS, PARTICULARLY
<br />SINGLE MEN, ROAMIN~ THE STREETS IN THE AREA IN WHICH SHE LIVES. SHE FURTHER STATED THAT
<br />IN ESSENCE IN HER BELIEF THE MISSION SHOULD BE LOCATED IN AN AREA OUT OF THE RESIDENTIAL
<br />DISTRICT, AWAY FROM $CHQOLS WHICH MIGHT BE INDUSTRIAL OR IN THE SMALL BUSINESS CATEGORY.
<br />SHE FURTHER INDICATED THAT SHE HAS NO QUESTION THAT THE SALVATION ARMY WILL DO A GOOD
<br />JOB WITH THE PEOPLE WHICH THEY CAN HELP., BUT FOR THOSE THEY CANNOT HELP SHE SUGGESTED
<br />THEY MIGHT PREY ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SHE fURTHER INDICATED IT IS HER HOPE ,THE SALVATION
<br />ARMY WOULD BE ABLE TO EXCHANGE THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY IN THEIR OWNERSHIP BETWEEN 7TH AND
<br />8TH AVENUES AND MONROE AND JEFFERSON STREETS FOR OTHER PROPERTY WHICH WOULD BE MORE SUIT-
<br />ABLE FOR THE PURPOSE fOR WHICH THEy DESIRE IT.
<br />
<br />~ \\
<br />~!
<br />
<br />1
<br />I
<br />
<br />II
<br />il
<br />
<br />'I
<br />I;
<br />i:
<br />"
<br />d
<br />),
<br />,/
<br />
<br />I
<br />_I
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />I; ::") ,'7;' ! .',L
<br />
<br />,', j ILL.
<br />
<br />.,
<br />
<br />:1
<br />il
<br />\j
<br />II
<br />Ii
<br />II
<br />il
<br />
<br />\1
<br />
<br />\1
<br />i;
<br />I
<br />I
<br />il
<br />'I
<br />Ii
<br />11
<br />II
<br />II
<br />II
<br />\:
<br />I!
<br />I,
<br />
<br />II
<br />
<br />II
<br />11
<br />II
<br />II
<br />~
<br />II
<br />\1
<br />II
<br />
<br />Ii
<br />
<br />II
<br />I ~
<br />I
<br />'.
<br />
<br />:1
<br />:i
<br />.'
<br />"
<br />il
<br />
<br />,I
<br />I
<br />:,
<br />I:
<br />Ii
<br />1
<br />I
<br />I
<br />!I
<br />'"
<br />'I
<br />I,
<br />:I
<br />!I
<br />II
<br />Ii
<br />Ii
<br />II
<br />11
<br />I'
<br />ii
<br />I
<br />I
<br />
<br />I,
<br />II
<br />Ii
<br />
<br />_
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
|