Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'~ <br />47J <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />1/13/64 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />00 <br />~ 1 2. <br />~ <br />(:.~ <br />""" <br />....... <br />:0 <br /> <br />made to other buildings. Mr. Christensen moved seconded by Mr. Hawk to <br />grant an extension of 120 days to complete the alteration. of the buildings <br />into a duplex. Motion carried. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Abatement, 2540 Hilyard Street, Hackett - A notice of removal having been <br />sent to Mrs. Virginia Hackett regarding a certain cement block house at <br />2540 Hilyard Street which Mr. and Mrs. Hackett own, the Council was asked <br />for an extension of time to complete the building and bring it to City <br />code requirements. Mrs. Hackett was present at the Committee meeting of <br />the Whole and stated that bids had been accepted for the completion of <br />certain cement work and other improvements to the building, but that due <br />to weather and other conditions they sought an extension of time of. <br />several months. After some further discussion, Mr..Chatt moved seconded <br />by Mrs. Lauris to grant the Hacketts a lBO-day extension in which to com- <br />plete the work as proposed. Motion carried. <br /> <br />Mrs. Lauris moved seconded. by Mr. Chatt that Items 1 and 2 of the Committee report be <br />approved. Motion carried. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />3. Abatement, 3635 and 3637 East Amazon Drive, Holemar - This item was not <br />discussed, Mr. Ho1emar not being present. <br /> <br />Mr. Hill, attorney for Mr. Holemar, stated that his client had paid an inspection fee <br />before acquiring the building and applying for a moving permit, and in his opinion the <br />City thereby granted Mr. Holemar permission to alter and repair and move the building <br />to a new location. Mr. Hill stated that he was asking the City Council to reconsider <br />the order for abatement sent to Mr. Holemar and allow him to present plans for the re- <br />construction of the building and what he intended to do in the way of correcting the <br />deficiencies as outlined by the Superintendent of Building Inspection. <br /> <br />Mrs. Lauris moved seconded by Mr. Swanson to grant Mr. Holemar three weeks in which to <br />present the design for the renovation of the building and also to list the deficiencies <br />to be corrected. Motion carried. <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />4. Abatement, 1601 West 7th Avenue, Collins - A letter was read by the City <br />Manager from Mr. Pat Collins of 1601 West 7th Avenue which stated that he <br />had been unable to move his stock of plywood, roofing, and other material <br />in the allotted time. Mr. Collins now seeks an. extended period of time <br />in which to conclude his business and the removal of the various buildings. <br />Mr. Chatt moved seconded by Mr. Swanson to grant Mr. Collins until <br />April 1, 1964 for the completion of his business. Motion carried. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mrs. Lauris moved seconded by Mr. Chatt that Item 4 of the Committee report be approved. <br />Motion carried. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />5. Board of Appeals Report, December 11, 1963 <br />a. Wood Screen,30 West 10th, Hubbard - The Board of Appeals had asked <br />for a policy decision from the City Council with regard to the re- <br />tention of wood screens for decorative purposes on the outside of <br />buildings. Mr. Del Hubbard of 30 West 10th Avenue had request per- <br />mission to leave a 9'x9' wood screen on the concrete wall on the out- <br />side of his office building, which wood screen he had been asked to <br />remove by Acting Superintendent of Building Inspection as being in <br />violation of the present City Code. Mr. Joe Richards, representing <br />Mr. Hubbard, stated that there are one or two other instances in <br />the City of Eugene where wood screens had been allowed to remain <br />and which are of a similar nature. Since this particular wood <br />screen would be in front of two small windows, Mrs. Lauris moved <br />seconded by Mr. Chatt to approve the screen, provided the window <br />openings are closed by either brick or block. Motion defeated. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Further discussion.by the Council resulted in a motion by Mr. Swanson <br />seconded by Mr. Chatt to allow the wood screen to remain as it is, <br />providing the wood is treated to make it substantially incombustible, <br />and motion carried, Mr. Christensen voting no. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />On.further-discussion by the Council members concerning the regula- <br />tions of the present City Code concerning wood screens, Mrs. Lauris <br />moved seconded by Mr. Chatt that the Council endorse and reaffirm <br />the language of the Code concerning wood appendages on the outside <br />of buildings. Motion carried. <br /> <br />1/13/64 - 7 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />~ <br />