|
<br />r32
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />5/25/64
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />/
<br />
<br />construction on Garden Avenue, with an 8~fqot setback wh~re a 10-foot set-
<br />back is required for use of colored windows and longer corridors., The
<br />Superintendent of Building Inspection stated that this requ~st is not a
<br />matter, of interpretation of the Code requirements or, a proposal 'for the
<br />use of: alternate materials and types of construction.
<br />
<br />Mr. Christensen moved seconded by Mrs. Lauris to deny the variance.
<br />
<br />Mr. Furtick stated that the Code could not possibly cover all. ,circumstances.
<br />The Fire Marshal said that the National Board of Fire Underwriters pays
<br />particular attention to how cities enforce their building codes. The .City
<br />Attorney explained that the Building Code provides minimum s,tandards of
<br />safety to prote~t the public. A Board of Appeals is prov{ded for in the
<br />Bulldihg Code,'but there is no provision for taking an ap~eal concerning
<br />Building Code enforcement from the ~oard of Appeals to the Council. He
<br />further stated that the only authority the Council has is to amend the
<br />Building Code.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />Tpe motion and second were withd~awn, and no action was taken.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Lauris moved second'ed by Mr,. Chatt that Item 1 of the Committee repor.t be re-
<br />ceived and placed on' file. Mot{on-carried'-'
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />1
<br />
<br />2. Variance 'Sign Code, Topper's Steak House, 80 East 29th Avenue' - Federal
<br />Sign and Signal, Corporation req'uesteCl a variance to alfow ere,ction of a
<br />;sign for Topper's Steak House 6'6" from the inside' eClge o'f th'e sidewalk at
<br />80 East 29th Avenue, whereas the property line is 11' from the inside edge
<br />.of the ,sidewalk. The Sign Co. stated they felt it would be a definite
<br />'disadva'ntage ,to,- the Steak ,House, if the sign were placed completely inside
<br />the property line, and that if 'need be in the future the sign would be
<br />removed at no cost to the City upon the City's request.' The Public Works
<br />Department poInted out that if the sign is allowed where requested, it'would
<br />be located within the street right-of-way, and that although the City has
<br />allowed slgns'within setback areas, it has not been the policy'to allow
<br />them in street right~-of~way.
<br />
<br />,Mrs. Lauris moved seconded by Mr. Chatt to deny the requested variance.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Lauris moved seconded by Mr ." Chat't to approve Item 2 of the Committee report de-
<br />nying the variance. Motion carried.
<br />
<br />2
<br />
<br />3.' Civil Defense' Emergency irepa'redness C.onferen~e - The City Manager read
<br />an announcement-concerping an, Emergency Prepareqness Conference to be
<br />held by the State Divisiop of Continuing Education in Harris Hall on.'
<br />May 27, 1964.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />3
<br />
<br />4. Stop Signs, 37th 'and Donald - The tity Manager recommended retaining the
<br />stop signs at 37th Avenue and Donald Street and the installation'of
<br />marked crosswalks at that intersection with' proper -Warning signs. The.
<br />Manager added that this re<;oj1IDlendation did not agree with the report of
<br />the Traffi~, Engineer. Mr.Christens~n mov~d seconded by Mr. Chatt to
<br />accept th'e- City }1anage~,' s. recommenda'tion t'o leave the stop sig'ns 'a't this
<br />intersection antf install marked crosswalks.' Motion carried, Mr: Hawk
<br />voting no.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />4
<br />
<br />5,. Planning Commission R'epOrt - Aprll' 21', 1964
<br />a. Annexation 52nd and Willamette, Associated Properties (64-059)
<br />The Planning Commission had recommended approval of the 100% consent
<br />petition for annexation of an area' north of 52nd Avenue and,west of
<br />Willamette Street. Mr. Chatt moved seconded by Mrs. Lauris that, t,he
<br />annexation be approved. Motion carried.'
<br />
<br />5
<br />
<br />\ '
<br />b. Vacation' easement Lots 3~4,5, Block 5, 1st Addition to Pl..ne Ridge
<br />,Park, Cook - Both the Public Works Department, and. the Planning Commis-
<br />sion had recomme,nded app'roval of the request for vacation.of the utility
<br />easement between Lots 3 and 4 and bet~ee~ Lots 4 and 5 ln Block 5,
<br />1st Addition. to Pine Ridge Park, as requested by Fair-Cliff Development
<br />Corporation. Mrs. Lauris moved seconded by_Mr. Hawk to, approve the re-
<br />quested vacation. Motion carried.' ,
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />5/25/64 - 3
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />~
<br />
|