05/24/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- I-A-3 e I-A-4 I-A-5 e I-A-6 Staff has no objections. OLCC report listed no objectors among those interviewed in the Atrium building. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Hamel to recommend approval of the application. Motion carried unanimously. D. Appeal from Building/Housing Code Board of Appeals grant of variances for property at 2164 Floral Hill Drive (Pembroke) Appeal submitted by Robert W. Morris, 2280 Floral Hill Drive, et al. Manager explained that the property had changed ownership since filing of the appeal by Robert W. Morris and other neighbors. The new owner is Terry Gross, he said. Mick Nolte, superintendent of building inspection, described the property, two small separate buildings owned by Mrs. Eileen Pembroke who requested variance on ceiling height and doorway clearances in the smaller of the two buildings. The Housing/Building Board granted the variance (April 21) on the condition that other deficiencies in the building were corrected. On May 12, he continued, housing inspection of the larger dwelling revealed several housing code defi- ciencies. Since that time, the new property owner has been in contact with the building and legal staffs. Mr. Nolte stated staff's position that enforcement of the building and housing codes was not at issue at this time; that would proceed as appropriate as an administrative matter. If no variance is granted, the build- ings will have to be brought to code standards. The new owner is trying to comply, he said, and should he fail to act in a reasonable period of time, staff will pro- ceed with abatement action. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, explained that although this hearing did not come under Fasano regulations, the burden of proof would be upon the appellants. Manager commented that the administration and neighbors were hoping that the buildings were either repaired promptly or eliminated. Public hearing was opened. Dennis Vettres, 2155 Floral Hill Drive, one of the appellants, said that when the variances were granted it appeared economically unfeasible to repair the build- ing to meet code requirements. He thought the smaller building should be removed, then the larger dwelling could be repaired, using the money that would have gond into the smaller building. He asked that the appeal be upheld. Terr: Gross, Lowell, Oregon, new owner of the property, explained that he had bought the property as an investment, planning to repair the buildings for rental income to make payments on the property until a new building could be built. He was satisfied he could repair the buildings without economic hardship if the variances were granted. Without the variances, costly repairs would be involved - raising ceiling heights, doorways, etc. Proposed repairs, he said, would bring the building to code requirements. He noted a petition he had circulated among neighbors and submitted to the manager's office in favor of the proposed rehabili- tation, including the deficiencies for which the variances had been granted by the Board of Appeals. He urged the Council to uphold the Board's decision to permit work to go ahead that would provide additional housing in the area. Councilman Bradley entered the meeting. Alan Scott, attorney, 101 East Broadway, retained by Mr. Gross, cited the number of variances granted by the Board on other projects in the past, and said that &6"1 5/24/76 - 3