09/10/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.'..'. Appeal from Decision of Sign Code Board of Appeals - Assistant City Manager advised'- ........ that the owner of the Washburne Building, 72 W. Broadway, was appealing the decision of the Sign Code Board of Appeals to deny the installation of a sign. The applicant - feels the request is for an integrated sign that ,can be part of the structure. He ! ,advised it would be proper to set a public hearing and suggested September 10. Richard Megenity of First National Bank, and representing Pacific University who owns the Washburne Building, requested the opportunity to comment, saying that small ; detailed signs are effective on the mall where people are strolling, not rushing by 'in cars. Councilman Williams rose to a point of order, saying that testimony should Comm be presented at a public hearing. ,8/29/73 Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood that a public hearing be scheduled for Pub Hrng , September 10. MClE:i:c>n__'?,!!?:~ed unani~?~~ly. ._- '---.'. ,,-.. '- - ~_._-~--- I II - Ordinances Council Bill No. 341 - Rezoning to RA area on both sides of Echo Hollow Road between Concord Street and Knoop Avenue, read the first time on July 23, 1973 and held, lacking unanimous consent for second reading. The bill was brought back and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Planning Commission discussed the rezoning with Council on August 20, 1973 and reaffirmed -- its recommendation of approval of RA zoning. David James, attorney representing Bill DeZeeuw, 2455 Frontier Driv.e, requested that the change not be made. He said consideration should be given to the future of the area be- fore rezoning on a piecemeal basis. Proper zones could always be handled later, he said, in a uniform plan for the entire area which takes traffic movement into consideration. I Manager suggested that if a vote is taken on final passage of the rezoning ordinance it would be appropriate to include adoption by reference of findings of fact as set forth in the Planning Commission minutes of June 5, 1973. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the Council agree with the findings of fact as set forth in the Planning Commission minutes of June 5, 1973 and finds them supported by the evidence in the record, that the Council hereby adopt these findings by reference thereto, and that the council bill be approved and given final passage. Councilman McDonald indicated his intention to abstain from voting because he was not present at the joint meeting of the Council and Commission with regard to this issue. Manager said that ,since this motion is on final passage, unanimous consent is not required so negative vote would not affect action. .. Rollcall vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, Councilmen Beal, Murray, and Wood voting aye; Councilman Keller voting no; and Councilman McDonald abstaining, and the bill was declared passed and numbered 16918. Council Bill No. 383 - Authorizing condemnation for storm sewer easement between Oakway and Coburg, Oakmont and Oakway Terrace, was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Manager explained that the City awarded a contract some time ago for construction of a storm sewer to drain the area west of Coburg Road south of Pioneer Pike Subdivision. Provision was made for the drain to run between properties on Oakway Terrace and Oakmont, closely skirting property on which a new house was recently constructed. Problems developed in excavation, and unstable soil conditions endanger the new structure. The most economical and least damaging solution appears to be to move alignment of the project north some 15 feet, going across the southerly edge of-Ms. Morgan's property. Contact has been made with Ms. Morgan a number of times but she does not want the line constructed on her property. Other alternatives have been explored such as retaining walls, etc., but there is the possibility that damage to the house wo~ld still occur. Staff people who have talked - to Ms. Morgan feel the easement will not damage or limit use of her property, but she re- mains uncanvinced. The project is to the point where it must proceed so approval of con- demnation is requested. Negotiation with Ms. Morgan will continue in an effort to gain her - permission, with the recognition that she will be paid. The Court will be asked for early entry on the property to allow the project to go ahead. In answer to questions from Councilman McDonald, Manager explained that the City's right-of- way agent has talked to Ms. Morgan several times. There are no improvements on the property, 2~7 9/10/73 - 11