09/09/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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