|
<br /> 459~
<br />e
<br /> 6/13/60 -
<br />- - -.. -. -- - ---
<br /> I il
<br /> ,I DOCUMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE CONTRACT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMSOULY.
<br /> il II
<br />I IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER AND SECONDED BY MRS. LAURIS THAT ITEM 4 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT
<br /> " I!
<br /> I BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. I,
<br /> :1 II
<br /> 'i II
<br /> I,: 5. CONSIDERATION OF A 100% PETITION FOR ANNEXATION CONCERNING LOT 9 CITY VIEW PARK AND THE 5TH AND :1
<br /> .1 6TH ADDITIONS TO NOB HILL - SOME DISCUSSION WAS HAD AND IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THESE ITEMS BE Ii
<br /> '1
<br /> , REFERRED TO, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR RECOMMENDATION AND THAT ,
<br /> I IN THE FUTURE, ITEMS OF ANNEXA- :\
<br /> TION REQUEST, STREET VACATION REQUESTS AND OTHER COMPARABLE ITEMS BE REFERRED DIRECTLY TO THE :1
<br /> I
<br /> i PLANNING COMMISSION FOR RECOMMENDATION BEFORE PRESENTATION TO THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED UNAN- ;1
<br />00 IMSOULY. lj
<br /> , iI
<br />C\~ I ,t
<br /> 'i
<br />"~ IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER AND SECONDED BY MR. CHATT THAT ITEM 5 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE II
<br />U APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. :i
<br />CO ij
<br />0.';) Ii
<br /> 2,' 6. CONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD OF ApPEALS REPORT - JUNE 8, 1960. - I'
<br /> ITEM A. REQUEST BY MR. WILLIAM BOND, 880 EAST Z4TH AVENUE, FOR VARIANCE FROM 5' SETBACK I!V
<br /> ON INTERIOR PROPERTY LINE FROM 20' SETBACK ON THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, 14' SETBACK FROM THE ,I
<br /> ALLEY LINE. THE REPORT OF THE BOARD OF ApPEALS WAS READ TO THE COMMITTEE IN WHICH THE BOARD OF 11
<br />e ApPEALS RECOMMENDED THAT THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE VARIANCE AND THE VARIANCE AND SETBACK FOR A GAR- !,
<br /> ! ,I
<br /> AGE BE GRANTED, PROVIDING THE PROPERTY OWNER COMPLIES WITH THE SETBACK ON THE ALLEY LINE. IT II
<br /> WAS THE BOARD'S BELIEF THAT THERE WAS AMPLE ROOM AT THE REAR OF THE PROERTY SO THE OWNER COULD
<br /> i COMPOI.Y WITH THE REQUIRED 14' SETBACK FROM THE ALLEY CENTER LINE; THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED :1
<br /> J .I
<br /> THAT THE BOARD OF ApPEALS REPORT BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 'I
<br /> i'
<br /> ITEM B. REQUEST BY R. R. fENN FOR VARIANCE FROM SIGN REGULATIONS TO ALLOW A 50 SQUARE ,I
<br /> :!
<br /> FOOT SIGN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 18TH AVENUE NEAR PIERCE STREET. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE BOARD I
<br /> !i
<br />I OF ApPEALS HAD CONSIDERED THIS REQUEST AND SINCE SIGNS IN THE C-2 ZONE WERE LIMITED TO 20 SQUARE 'I
<br /> !,
<br /> ! FEET, THAT THIS RESTRICTION SHOULD ALSO APPLY TO A SIGN LOCATED IN AN RA ZONE. THE BOARD OF 'I
<br /> ApPEALS RECOMMENDED THAT THE SIGN BE RESTRICTED TO 20 SQUARE FEET IN AREA. THE COMMITTEE DISCUSSED i
<br /> "
<br /> i;
<br /> THIS AND RECOMMENDED THAT THE SIGN CONFORM TO THE REGULATIONS FOR THE AREA AND THE THE REQUEST BE 'i
<br /> 1 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMSOULY.
<br /> DENIED. II
<br /> \i
<br /> , 'I
<br /> 1 Ii
<br /> 3: 7. DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE ARCHITECT COMPETITION - THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT STATED T~T DEAN 11
<br /> :!
<br /> WALTER GORDON, WHO HAD BEEN ENGAGED AS PROFESSIONAL ADVISOR FOR THE COMPETITION FOR THE CITY h
<br /> HALL, WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING AND THAT CERTAIN PRELIMINARY INFORMATION WAS AVAILABEE il
<br /> "
<br /> I IT WAS EXPLAllfD if
<br /> I AND THAT CERTAIN ACTIONS WERE NECESSARY SO THE COMPETITION COULD BE I N I 11 ATED. :!
<br /> I
<br /> THAT IT WAS PROPOSED THAT THE INVITATIONS TO COMPElE BE ISSUED ON JUNE 10, 1960, CONDITIONS OF
<br /> THE COMPETITION TO BE MADE AVAILABLE AND REGISTRATION FOR COMPETITION BE OPENED AS OF JULY J5,
<br /> REGISTRATION TO CLOSE ON AUGUST I, QUESTION PERIOD TO CLOSE ON SEPTEMBER 15, THE LAST DATE FOR THE
<br /> DISPATCH OF PRELIMINARY ENTRIES, NOVEMBER I, WITH THE FINAL STAGE TO BEGIN ON DECEMBER I. IT
<br /> WAS FURTHER REPORTED THAT DEAN GORDON WAS RE(I).1MENDING PIETRO BECLUSCHI OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS,
<br /> PAUL THIRY OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, fRANCES MCCARTH~ OF SAN fRANCISCO, MR. EDWIN E. CONE, MAYOR
<br /> OF THE CITY OF EUGENE AND MRS. CATHERINE LAURIS, COUNCILWOMAN OF THE CITY OF EUGENE TO BE THE
<br /> JURY OF AWARD FOR THE ARCHITECT'S COMPETITION FOR THE EUGENE CITY HALL. THE COMMITTEE RECOM-
<br /> MENDED THAT THE REPORT AND REroMMENDATIONS OF DEAN GORDON BE ADOPTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
<br /> IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT IN THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE CITY HALL, BEING THE BLOCK BETWEEN
<br />I " 7TH AND 8TH AND PEARL AND HIGH STREETS, THERE WERE TWO STANDARD COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, ONE BEING
<br /> ,
<br /> I
<br /> THE BUILDING OCCUPIED BY THE C&S ELECTRIC AND THE OTHER BEING OCCUPIED BY THE BEE LINE SERVICE. I'
<br /> i "
<br /> "
<br /> IN ORDER FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL COMPETITORS TO PROPERLY UNDERTAKE THEIR DESIGN, IT IS NECESSARY ,
<br /> ':
<br /> FOR A DETERMINATION TO BE MADE AS TO WhETHER THESE BUILDINGS BE ACQUIRED AND REMOVED, ACQUIRED "
<br /> "
<br /> "
<br /> , AND INTEGRATED OR ACQUIRED AND LEFT FOR FUTURE DISPOSITION. VARIOUS SUGGESTIONS WERE MADE, INCLUD- il
<br /> i "
<br /> ING THAT THE BUILDINGS BE LEFT FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD, T~T THEY BE PURCHASED, THAT THEIR INCLU- I,
<br /> il
<br /> SION IN THE BLOCK WOULD SEVERELY HAMPER THE ARCHITECTS IN THEIR DESIGN. IT WAS LIKEWISE EXPRESSED "
<br /> I:
<br /> THAT THESE BUILDINGS COULD REMAIN IN THE EASTERLY PART OF THE BLOCK AND AT SOME FUTURE TIME 'I
<br /> 'I
<br />e WHEN PARKING WAS NECESSARY THEY COULD BE REMOVED, BUT IN THE INTERIM PERIOD THEY WOULD SERVE SOME I,
<br /> USEFUL PURPOSE. fOLLOWING THE DISCUSSION IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT il
<br /> BE INFORMED THAT THE CITY INTENDS TO ACQUIRE THE WHOLE BLOCK BETWEEN 7TH ANO 8TH AVENUE AND PEARL "
<br /> q
<br /> AND HIGH STREETS ON WHICH THESE TWO BUILDINGS ARE LOCATED AND THAT SUCH BUILDINGS WILL REMAIN. 11
<br /> MOTION CARRIED, WITH MR. MCGAFfEY VOTINGNAY.
<br /> "
<br /> "
<br /> IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER AND SECONDED BY MR. MCGAFFEY THAT THIS ITEM BE HELD OVER, THAT THIS II
<br /> 'I II
<br /> ITEM BE THE FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS fOR THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING TO BE HELD Ju~ 16, 1960 :1
<br /> II
<br /> AND THAT THE COMMITTEE VIEW THE PROPERTY. MOTION CARRIED. "
<br /> II
<br /> I'
<br /> 'I
<br /> "
<br /> I 8. REPORT ON PROPOSED ELECTRICAL CODE BY COUNCILMAN SWANSON - COUNCILMAN SWANSON REPORTED THAT HE Ii
<br /> 4:
<br /> " HAD GONE OVER THE ELECTRICAL CODE AND CONSIDERED IT WAS AN EXCELLENT CODE. SOME OF THE REQUIRE- il
<br /> MENTS FOR SERVICE WERE LARGER THAN THAT PROVIDED BY THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, WHICH WERE I
<br /> i ,I
<br /> "
<br /> BASED ON NATIONAL AVERAGES, AND THAT HE WAS SATISfiED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE AND 'I
<br /> "
<br /> WOULD RECOMMEND ITS ADOPTION. HE POINT OUT THAT HE HAD SOME QUESTION ABOUT THE FEES FOR INSPEC- i
<br /> I,
<br /> TIONS, BUT ON CONSULTATION WITH THE ELECTRICAL I'
<br /> INSPECTOR HAD DETERMINED THAT THESE FEES WERE BASIC- t!
<br /> I I
<br />I I ALLY IN LINE WITH OTHER FEES CHARGED IN THE STATE. THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT ,THE ELECTRICAL 'I
<br /> :1 CODE BE ADOPTED AS RECOMMENDED BY COUNCILMAN SWANSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. II
<br /> ,
<br /> :1
<br /> , :;
<br /> ,
<br /> " I
<br /> ;1
<br /> I 'I
<br /> 'I
<br /> i \1
<br /> / ~ I
<br /> 'I
<br /> .- :\
<br /> >
<br />e 'I
<br /> I,
<br /> :i
<br /> "
<br /> :....
<br />
|