Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> MINUTES <br /> EUGENE CITY COUNCIL <br /> September 9, 1974 <br /> e <br /> Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon of September 9, 1974 <br /> was carried over to September 16, 1974 because of lack of quorum. <br /> M I NUT E S <br /> EUGENE CITY COUNCIL <br /> September 16, 1974 <br /> , Regular meeting - carried over from September 9, '1974 - of the Common Council .of the city <br /> I of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. <br /> on September 16, 1974 in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: <br /> Tom Williams, H. C. McDonald, Beth Campbell, Gus Keller, Neil Murray, and Robert Wood. <br /> Council membe~s James Hershner and Wickes Beal,were absent. <br /> (0001 ) Mayor Anderson called attention to the electronic voting mechanism recently installed and <br /> explained to Council members its.use and method of operation. <br /> e L - Public Hearings <br /> A. Appeal, Zoning Board of Appeals August 1, 1974 decision allowing six-foot high <br /> wooden fence at 2233 Potter Street (Hugh Ford) - Ben Lansdale, 2275 Potter. <br /> Manager explained that the ftncewas constructed within five feet of the property <br /> line by_Hugh Ford to replace a thick laurel hedge killed by freezing weather. <br /> Appeal for removal of the fence by Ben Lansdale to the Zoning Board of Appeals <br /> resulted in decision on August 1, 1974 to allow the fence to remain. Copies of <br /> minutes of that meeting together with copies of letter of appeal ,to~l\the Council <br /> were previously distributed to Council members. Manager noted letter received <br /> from Mr. Lansdale suggesting that it was not appropriate for the Council to judge <br /> .this- type of appeal. He wrote,that if the ordinance was not appropriate then it <br /> should be amended. Council was reminded that the Code provided that in the event <br /> there was an appeal to the Council, it was the final arbiter. <br /> Public hearing was opened. <br /> Hugh Ford, 1114 East 22nd Avenue, asked Council approval of Zoning Board action <br /> allowing the fence to stay. He said ivy would be growing. over the fence in a <br /> few years and would make a better appearance than the laurel hedge it replaced. <br /> - Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. <br /> Manager said that since the question of precedent had been raised in the appeal <br /> it slnuld be noted that there were a number of fences of similar height within <br /> a block or so of this property although none were.ofsimilar length hiding as <br /> much property. <br /> (0419) Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Keller to deny the appeal and uphold <br /> , the Zoning Board of Appeals decision allowing the fence tOl stay. . <br /> Councilwoman Campbell opposed the motion' on the basis that"she had encountered the <br /> same situation in her neighborhood where a fence_had not been allowed higher <br /> than the neighbors wanted. She felt it would be hypocritical _for her to vote <br /> for a fence higher than regulations provided for in anotner neighborhood and she.. <br /> wondered how many exceptions to the Code as a consequence would be:nequested. <br /> Councilman McDonald asked if the fence was on a corner lot and whether it would <br /> interfere with traffic~ Manager explained that the fence was located on the upper <br /> edge of a bank, several feet above sidewalk grade, and would not constitute a <br /> traffic hazard. Photographs of the fence were distributed for Council information. <br /> (0472) Councilman Murray was in favor of the motion. He said he understood Mrs. <br /> . Campbell's position but thought the ordinance might be unduly restrictive and that <br /> its revision might be appropriate. <br /> Councilman Williams said the fence in Mr. Campbell's neighborhood about which she <br /> spoke was a different situation- it was a fence proposed for construction down- <br /> hill from view property and would have resulted in a_substantial number of the <br /> neighbors having to look at the fence. He said in this instance view property <br /> was not a concern and the- fence would not obstruct anyone-' s view. <br /> 't, ~ 1. <br /> 9/9/74 - 1 <br /> ~\@) 9/16/74 - 1 <br />