Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Council Chamber <br /> Eugene, Oregon <br /> July 24-, 1972 <br /> djourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the - <br /> eeting held July 10, 1972 - was called to order by Council President Fred J. Mohr (Mayor Ander- e' <br /> on arrived later) at 7:30 p.m. on July 24-, 1972 in the Council Chamber with the following other <br /> ouncilmen present: Mrs. Beal, Messrs. McDonald, Teague, Williams, and Bradshaw (arrived later). <br /> ouncilmen Hershner and Campbell were absent. <br /> - Public Hearings <br /> A. Vacation Center Wa~south of Martin Street (Brant Enterprises) <br /> Planning Commission May 22/23, 1972 recommended approval. Manager explained the vacation <br /> will permit re-subdivison of adjacent property and development under planned unit pro- <br /> cedures. The street was originally dedicated for subdivision under standard procedures. <br /> Council Bill No. 32 - Vacating Center Way 4-93 feet more or less south of Martin Street <br /> was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and <br /> title, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. <br /> Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Teague that the bill be read the second time by council <br /> bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council and that enactment be con- <br /> sidered at this time. <br /> Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Teague that the bill be approved and given final passage. <br /> Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, except Mr. McDonald voting no, the <br /> bill was declared passed and numbered 16576. . <br /> B. Appeal, Fence Height, 2080 Churchill Street (Schaaf) <br /> Manager explained that the appeal was submitted by Richard L. Schaaf, 2080 Churchill <br /> Street, who wishes to retain a five-foot high fence on the property line at his residence <br /> in violation of the zoning ordinance governing setback requirements in front yards. <br /> The request was denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Minutes of the-Board were read <br /> as was the letter of appeal from Mr. Schaaf. <br /> Mr. Schaaf said the fence in question is the same as existed when he moved to this house, <br /> except that he has moved it 20 feet closer to the street to allow additional yard space. <br /> Building Superintendent noted that the Code allows a maximum of 30-inch height for fences <br /> within the first 15 feet of yard space. Beyond that, a 6-foot high fence is permitted. <br /> Councilman McDonald questioned the difference between this situation and that at 12th and <br /> Garfield where there is the same type fence. Building Superintendent explained that fence <br /> was constructed prior to adoption of the present zoning ordinance. He went on to give the <br /> reasons for the setbacks in the present ordinance, saying the general idea of the Planning I <br /> Commission was; to preclude a wa'lled-street effect. ' In answer to Councilman Teague, Build- <br /> ing Superintendent said that to comply with the ordinance Mr. Schaaf would have to set <br /> the existing fence back 16 feet from the sidewalk. <br /> Mr. McDonald questioned the reasons for not allowing the fence at its present location . <br /> inasmuch as Mr. Schaaf purchased the property in order to take advantage of the yard <br /> space for his children and dog. <br /> . . . ~ . <br /> In answer to Councilman Mohr, Building.Superintendent said the violation 'dates back to <br /> August 1971. After extensive enforcement efforts by the Building Department, actual sign- <br /> ing of a complaint and conviction in Municipal Court, Mr. Schaaf came before the Zoning <br /> Board of Appeals. Mr. Schaaf called attention to houses in the same. general area,located <br /> within the setback area and said that there are no houses facing the street on which his <br /> fence is located. <br /> Dennis Miller, 3853 'Langton Street;, objected to"present location of the- fence', saying <br /> restrictions should have been noted prior to assumption of responsibility for the property. <br /> ~ Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Teague to uphold the Z0ning Board of Appeals <br /> and deny the appeal. Motion carried unanimously. ---._-" <br /> C. Reconsideration, RMBC Liquor License - Riviera Tavern, 99 River Avenue (Beckley) <br /> Manager noted that the Council recommended denial of this application previoUSly, then <br /> at the July 10 meeting voted to reconsider its action. He said the OLCC had been asked <br /> to withhold its action until Council reconsideration. . <br /> John Bartels, part owner of Riviera Village Apartments at 130 River Avenue, read a peti- <br /> tion signed by residents of the area, opposing the tavern's location at 99 River Avenue. <br /> He also noted other taverns in the area and pizza parlors where beer is available :"in re- <br /> buttal to the applicant's previous testimony as to need for a tavern in this location. , <br /> He reiterated his obj ections presented to the Council at its previous consideration of ":_ <br /> d IS 7/24-(72 - 1 <br />