|
<br />e
<br />
<br />"""Il
<br />
<br />1-:5(;
<br />
<br />1-25-71
<br />
<br />-~I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />Ii
<br />,I
<br />II
<br />
<br />:1
<br />
<br />Ii
<br />Ii
<br />I'
<br />"
<br />"
<br />!i
<br />I:
<br />'i
<br />!,
<br />I
<br />Ii
<br />
<br />II
<br />Ii
<br />"
<br />:1
<br />!I
<br />I,
<br />I:
<br />ii
<br />!!
<br />::
<br />
<br />par'ti'c::u1ar area. ,He felt. th,ere .was no..opportunity to: enter the area ,so" that a billboard
<br />advertising the area would, not ,bene,fit, business' there.
<br />
<br />Mr. Gleaves did not feel the ,question of access should be considered - it had not been
<br />previously considered as policy, in connection with placement of billboards.
<br />
<br />In answer to Councilman Mohr, ,Mrs. Niven said there would not particularly be blanketing,
<br />but that zoning classifications have no~ yet been determined for the entire area to the
<br />east. The Planning Commission will be discussing with Lane County Planning Commission the
<br />most appropriate land use. 'Thereforet it would be bad planning to establish a pattern for
<br />that particular section. -
<br />
<br />il
<br />II
<br />,I
<br />;1
<br />
<br />I:
<br />I
<br />i;
<br />II
<br />"
<br />
<br />ii
<br />II
<br />,
<br />"
<br />"
<br />I,
<br />I'
<br />"
<br />II
<br />I:
<br />I:
<br />i:
<br />I:
<br />Ii
<br />,
<br />I:
<br />
<br />Councilman Hershner said
<br />one reg~rding Beltline.
<br />since he has property on
<br />
<br />it seemed two issues were involved, one regarding River Road and
<br />In view of this, Mr. Hershner would have a conflict of interest,
<br />River Road.
<br />
<br />In reply to Councilman Teague, the Manager explained that the Council could consider both
<br />matters at the same time, and if in the future it seemed logical to redesignate this area,
<br />the Council could do so.
<br />
<br />~...- --- -
<br />
<br />.--, .." - -- +'-'~ .---
<br />~~or'cC0uncil' ~ctiorCon-"G<i>uneil bill No. 1343 see -Page .),.3',
<br />
<br />of tbe5e min~tes.
<br />
<br />=
<br />
<br />- . . .
<br />......__...4_..
<br />
<br />: .~~-'
<br />
<br />C. January 11, 1971 Planning Corrmussion Report
<br />1. Recommended Denial of Vacation
<br />West of 24th between Larence Street and,Wasrrngton Street
<br />
<br />Petitioner expressed wish to withdraw request if condition of vacation
<br />was paving of alley at his own expense.
<br />
<br />Mr. John Gange, 2421 Washington Street, said several people were concerned about the effect
<br />of vacation of this street, since it is already a v~ry narrow road.
<br />
<br />Fern Mansfield, 2125 Carmel, said this would take 15' off the access to her property, which
<br />was already extremely narrow.
<br />
<br />Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the Planning Commission recommendation be approved.
<br />Motion carried.
<br />
<br />II
<br />
<br />Ii
<br />
<br />2,. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Reconunended
<br />Provides the Planning Comndssion may request final reading of zone change
<br />ordinances involving Planned Unit Development or Conditional Use be held until
<br />Planning Commission has given final project approval.
<br />
<br />The Comrirission has been following this procedure for some time, but there is
<br />no ordinance indicating this should be done.
<br />
<br />For formal action on Council Bill No. 9344, see Page 13
<br />
<br />of these minutes.
<br />
<br />3.
<br />
<br />Joint Housing Comndttee Recommendation
<br />Request that housing code compliance be limited to safety standards.
<br />
<br />The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council accept the recommendation of
<br />the Joint HOusing Committee to limit housing code compliance to safety standards in areas
<br />under study for any renewal program. This is acceptable practice to the Department of
<br />Housing and Urban Development, as far as workable program enforcement is concerned.
<br />
<br />This came about because people might be required to bring housing up to standard in
<br />areas which are being considered for renewal. If the property was then razed, it might
<br />have been an unnecessary expense for low income people.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Niven explained that it had been a continuing concern that codes had not
<br />been enforced in areas which might be subject to renewal, and that they might not be
<br />considered safe. With this provision, the obligation to safety can be fulfilled
<br />without making long~term improvements.
<br />
<br />In answer to Councilman McDonald, Mrs. Niven said this would not apply to the entire
<br />City, but only to areas being considered for redevelopment or renewal. She outlined
<br />items that would be considered under the term "safetY." and those which might not be
<br />enforced for a short term. She explained the shortage of housing for low income
<br />persons, and that this program might eliminate the possibility of putting someone into the
<br />street. The distinction is difficult, but most things incorporated into the building
<br />code w0uld be enforced. The Building Superintendent sees no problem with this
<br />recommendation.
<br />
<br />Ii
<br />
<br />II
<br />ii
<br />
<br />City Manager pointed out that the housing code, as opposed to the building code,
<br />contains mapy fhings based upon health standards ,such as minimum ceiling heights,
<br />width of stairways, hot ru..."1ning water, which are long-term considerations, while
<br />those relating to safety would be something considered hazardous at the time, which
<br />could be injurious to the occupant.
<br />
<br />\1
<br />"
<br />
<br />Planning Director outlined the situation in the State Street area where houses
<br />*Sections printed in italics are from Committee Reports 1/25/71 - 3
<br />
<br />.....
<br />
|