06/22/1970 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"""'IIIl Lib e 6/22/70 -- I H. Electrical Code - Copies of the proposed electrical code ordinance were distributed. The ! City Manager pointed out that in some instances the state requirements are less tha~ those I of the National Code, and that his understanding was that the Council wished to adopt the II National Code with the State amendments which were more requiring than the National Code, " i! I: without any local amendments except those which apply to fees and the Appeals Board. I! 'I I There was Council discussion of inspection practice and whether it might be more economi- Ii cal to utilize the state electrical inspectors. It was pointed ,out that the new fee schedilile should adequately cover the cost of inspection, and that builders and home owners Ii received better service with the city inspection serv,ice. I Ii Dr. Purdy was concerned that there might be other differences between the State and the I il I National Codes which the Council 'should be aware of, and requested that the staff make I a study and report back at the next meeting. Mayor Anderson said that it was the consensus that the National Code would supersede any standards established by the State which were considered to be less than the National e Code. ,t Purdy to receive and file Item Ih of the Committee report. Ii Mr. Teague moved seconded by Dr. II II Ii The City Manager said that he had received a request from two members of the National Electrical II Contractors Association to consider using State Inspection service and dropping the city inspection. I II The Council will discuss the matter at the time of Council Bill passage. I I, I A vote was taken on the motion. Motion carried. I Ii 2. Appeal from Zoning Board of Appeals Decision - Mr. N.B. Guistina, 880 Crest Drive, has appealed Ii \' the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a T.V. antenna. The matter concerns I I interpretation of the zoning ordinance, as it applies to exceptions from the height limitations i I in residential zones. The appellant has erected a T.V. antenna which exceeds the height limi- I I tation permitted. The administration interpretation, upheld by the Appeals Board, is that the Ii exception clause applies only to roof structures, and does not apply to independent structures, II as is the case in the dispute. II Sam Hughes, representing Mr. Guistina~ explained the appelant's position that the structure II Mr. Ii should be treated as an exception. He said that he had just received the City Attorney's II opinion in the matter, and would comment on it at the regular meeting. Ii II FIr. Donald Fox, resident of the area, felt that the structure was unsightly, and incompatible " II with the neighborhood. II I! Dr. Leslie White said that he had moved into the area because of the unobstructed view, and Ii that residents had gone to personal expense to put lines underground to eliminate poles. He I ~ hoped that something could be done to remove this structural steel tower. Ii Mrs. Betty Niven explained that the ordinance exceptions were for structures on a building. I II If this structure were part of the roof of the building, the building would collapse. I " II Dr. Purdy requested that the cable company be contacted to see when the cable would be extended II to this area. I! , I At the committee meeting, it was announced that people could be heard at the regular meeting. i Since that time Mr. Hughes, attorney for Mr. Guistina, has filed a legal reply to the City Attorney d opinion. The reply needs further study. The City Manager has contacted the cable company, and I " , - Ii the T.V. cable will be into this area in 1971. Ii Mr. Teague moved seconded by Dr. Purdy to postpone this item until the Council receives further legal advice. Ii Ii Mr. Sam Hgghes, representing Mr. Guistina, said that he had met with the City Attorney and had I' iI I' submitted a legal memo relating to this matte~, and that it woilild be agreeable to hold it over to Ii a later date. Ii No one was present to speak in favor 'of or against this item. !i I A vote was taken on the motion. Motion carried. I[ II Discussion, 1970 Federal Census - Preliminary figures indicate a difference of 1826 persons II 3. \: from the annual state estimate. If this drop becomes official it would mean a difference of , Ii $35,440 in revenue to be received by the City. An .investigation of the desirability of a I II campaign to locate people not counted in the census is being made. II In anSWB.rto Dr. Purdy, the City Manager said that this would take effect in the middle of the Ii :: fiscal year. The budget for the first half of the year would be on the basis of the State I: I' )i certification. I, 11 Mr. Teague moved seconded by Dr. Purdy to receive and file Item 3 of the Committee report. Motion Ii carried. Ii e I, ii 6/22/70 - 9 I; ~