10/11/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Appeals had received numerous requests over the years for either waivers or vari~nces, mostly where corner lots were concerned, because of the difficulty e to o~tain privacy where a rear yard is open to two streets. Mr. Chenkin ex- plained that the proposed amendment would provide for an administrative process - rather than the more formal process now in effect, that is, the building in- spection superintendent would grant a request instead of going through the ap- peal,process to the Board of Appeals and the Council. He explained details of the amendment as shown in the Planning Commission official report of August 3, 19761 (copies previously distributed to Council members) and said that staff thought adoption of the amendment would probably result in construction of better quality fences in general because a building permit would be required. The proposed process would also relieve the Zoning Board of a good deal of "traffic," would expedite applications, and would allow more flexibility where private outdoor living space was desired. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. In response to Councilman Haws, Mr. Chenkin said that 66% of the applications for variances from regulations governing fences or walls in front yards involved corner lots; the rest were on interior lots where people were wanting to build to more than the regulation height. Counl'ilman Murray raised a question about the wording' with regard to the height of fonces allowed "... up to six feet...." He thought the wording should be more precise, that perhaps it would be better to say fI...at least six feet...." He also "asked the reason for the six-foot setback along at least half an affected lot frontage. Mr. Chenkin said the precise language was reviewed by the city atto~ney and was similar to the present code language. He said it would be e checked to determine whether there would be problems with the proposed wording. ~ Gene Haxton, zoning administrator, said the six-foot setback requirement would apply only in the waiver process and was retained so as not to deprive appli- cants of space they may wish to develop. In further explanation, he said a IS-foot setback is now required for any fence over 30 inches high. He agreed with Mr. Murray's assessment that it was primarily an aesthetic consideration, landscaping was more important for the owner wanting a fence of wall over the regulation height. Councilman Haws expressed disappointment at lack of public input. He asked whe- ther !the neighborhood organizations had been contacted in this regard and whether there was any response. Mr. Chenkin'said the neighborhoods had been contacted and although two or three made suggestions which were incorporated into the proPQsed amendment, there were none opposed to the concept. Manager said he thought the acceptability of this amendment would depend upon the way it was administered. He recognized the "bombshell" effect if six-foot fences were allowed in front yards on block after block of streets in areas where there were large expanes of front lawns. Discretion and judgment in ad- ministration of the proposed code change would be necessary. Council Bill No. 1254 - Amending City Code re: Fences and walls in front ayrds in residential districts was read qy council bill. number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. e Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by '- council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill;was read the second time by council bi 11 number only. 10/11/76 - 2 Lf11