02/25/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-. and Marcia Hafner together with minutes of Zoning Code Board of Appeals meeting of January 31, 1974 were previously distributed to Council members. Zoning. Board upheld staff denial of variance for the fence. Some Council members had viewed the fence on tour. Public hearing was opened. 1446 Marcia Hafner, 2233 West 28th Avenue, said she had made an appeal to the Zoning Board based on information given her by the Building Department. She objected to the manner in which the hearing was conducted before the Board, saying she questioned the-right of persons present at that meeting to attack the petitioner's integrity witho~t opportunity for rebuttal., She noted that the Council had not received copy of her appeal to the Zoning Board and asked an opportunity to defend her position. Mrs. Hafner gave her reasons ,for wanting the type of fence installed - to keep dogs and deer out of the yeaI'd, to be able to 'raise a garden and flowers, give privacy for their main outdoor living-area. - She presented a diagram of the lot and pictures showing location of the house in relation to slope of the property and shape of the lot. Manager explained that the petition for variance involves not only a setback variance but also the fact that the fence is located within the street right~of-way. Encroachment could be permitted by granting a revocable permit, he said, calling for removal at anytime the right-of-way was needed for public purposes. .. Lowell Smith, 2087 Emerald Street, landscape designer, said the fence was only a part of the overall design plan for the Hafners and should not be judged in a partially completed state. It did not represent a safety hazard, he said, and did not block traffic vision. Noe did he think the fence downgraded the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood or, devalue properties in ~hat area. Speaking against approval of the fence were: Joe and Gleneva Jones, 2230 West 28th Avenue Oscar Strauss, 2291 West 28th Avenue Al Strassmaier, 2290 West 28th Avenue Barbara Nelson, 2247 West 28th Avenue All objected to the appearance of the fence and nonconformance with the Code and with other properties in the neighborhood. Mr. Strauss said view of traffic entering the cul-de-sac from Chambers and Garfield would be blocked endangering children play- ing in the area. The problem with deer was recognized but those opposing the fence did not feel that was the proper solution. Ms. Nelson said she was having difficulty selling her property because of the appearance of the fence. 1610 Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. . In answer to Councilman McDonald, Mrs. Hafner said one of the purposes of the fence was to keep out dogs. Mr. McDonald felt property owners had the right to construct barriers to protect their properties, especially since enforcement of the leash law was less than desirable. In answer to his questions with regard to height of the fence, Gene Haxton, building department, read that part of the Code governing fence construction., It provided for IS-foot front yard setback from property line and allowable fence height of 2~' anywhere in the front yard behind the setback area. In answer to Councilman Williams, Mrs. Hafner said a 30" fence in the right-of-way would help keep dogs out of the yard, however it would not give much protection from dder. She said if such permit was granted she would like to extend the side fences for the sake of appearance. She added that the whole point of her request was that a variance be allowed to permit the six-foot fence. In answer to Council- woman Campbell's question about the designer's responsibility to inform clients of Code restrictions, Mrs. Hafner said she had designed and constructed the fence her- self and didn't know of Code restrictions until the fence was partially built. She said she had been informed about use of plantings but she didn't feel that would keep animals out. Councilwoman Campbell expressed her preference for unfenced front yards to give an appearance of openness and no obstructions. In answer to Councilman Hershner, Mrs. Hafner said the fence if allowed would be constructed to the height of the posts shown in"the pictures she presented. She felt that height was needed for privacy from the street and neighbors' driveways. .-.-- ~ '''"' In answer to Councilman Murray, Manager explained that the oridnance regulating fence heights was adopted in March 1968 on the premise that general pattern of resi- dential development in the city would try to avoid the building of barriers between front yards and sight obstructions for traffic in the streets. They constitute a safety hazard for people backing from driveways. Mr. Haxton added that vision clear- ance in the instance of this particular fence was not covered by clearance standards at intersections. However, the fence would partially block the view of some traffic. Portion of the Code was read pertaining to granting of variances for fences. Council- 58 2/25/74 - 3