09/09/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, Councilman Wood felt the fence should be allowed. He thought it was one of many instances where variances were appropriate to provide privacy, protect gardens, hinder dogs, etc. e Councilwoman Campbell wondered if people_ were allowed to -build any type of fence (0518) they wanted and why they weren't i~formed about height restrictions. Mick Nolte, superintendent of building inspection, advised that permits were required -for. fences higher than six feet. Difficulty in making that information available was pri- marily because permits weren't required for fences unless their construction would be in violation of the zoning ordinance. Councilman McDonald mentioned a fence on West 28th which had to be removed because it was in violation and wondered what the rules and regulations were. Manager explained that the Council did approve an appeal on West 28th where a fence had been constructed higher than the 2-1/2 foot limitation in the front yard setback. The Council, he said, had viewed :the property and apparently concluded'that the overheight fence interfered with the neighbors' enjoyment of their properties. He said an ordinance undoubtedly could be developed over a period of time, setting, criteria for fence heights different from that now in the zoning ordinance. However, he thought it would become very complicated because of the many variations in cir- cumstances affecting locations, heights, contours, building locations, etc. There would probably be just as many' appeals as under existing regulations ,'- he said, so that deciding on an individual basis would still appear to be less cumbersome. Councilman Keller was in favor of allowing the fence, to stay. He thought the fact . that it was a replacement for the hedge rather than complet'ely new. ::construction should have some weight. And he thought after a couple of years the fence would age and b~ an attractive structure even without an ivy covering. Vote was taken on the motion to deny the appeal and allow the- fence to remain. Motion carried, all Council 'members present voting aye, except Councilwoman Campbell voting no. B. Appeal, Sign Code Board of Appeals July 15, 1974 denial 'of identity sign on east (0600) building wall - Ricketts Baldwin Pianos, 2880 Willamette ~ h__._ .________.._ _ _ _ _____.._._______ _~. ___ _...... . .__ n_ _. --. "'-"-.. -~ '_.~_.~.._ .._.... __.~___. _ '. '''''_'''__'__'_ __~ .____ ~_... _. +_.~_ _ _. __...._~._ _ __u.' _."_ . ---~,---~ Appeal, Ricketts-Baldwin Pianos Sign, 2880 South Willamette - Copies of a summary; I of enforcement action at 17 locations in the South Willamette area undertaken by " , ! staff were previously furnished to Council members. \ t Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Wood to reschedule discussion of the Ricketts appeal for the September 16, 1974 Council meeting. Conun Motion carried unanimously. 9/4/74 rub IILllg Manager noted list of nonconforming signs in the South Willamette area, copies of, .- which had been furnished to Council members, and the action proposed by the building department to bring them into compliance with the Code. He suggested administrative action would bring the 17 nonconforming signs into compliance thereby putting all businesses in that area on an equal basis, unless the Council should direct other- wise--such as allowing the nonconforming signs to remain or authorizing a five-year amortization period. Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray to deny the appeal and uphold the Sign Code Board of Appeals denial of identity sign on east building wall at 2880 Wil- lamette. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Council- man Williams abstaining. After further discussion the motion was amended with the consent of the second and other Council members to include findings in support of the denial as set out in Sign Code Board of Appeals minutes of July 15,,1974. Wayne Wagner, owner and operator of Ricketts Baldwin Pianos, said he was under the impression that the issue was postponed to October 14, 1974.' Now he wondered what he should do if -';his sign was disallowed and competitors' signs were allowed to (0704 ) remain. Proposed administrative action was further explained which would bring other signs in the area into conformance with the Code. Mr. Wagner was given a copy of the . list of signs and out-line of el).forcement action which would take place. Manager stated his understanding of previous action was to continue to no later than October 14, 1974 to give staff opportunity to make a reconunendation on other nonconforming signs in the area.' ...__h _ C. "A--;;;";;~s~e;';t "De-TeL- raT' Program --::'-cop~ 7:ts"or - proposed' or(iiiiai}(ieuon-a-s;~ss-;;'~;;~-'deferra1 '\ (0732) .in hardship cases requested by the CouncH in lioe with its adopted pol'cy wer) previously distributed to Counc~l members. Conun Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray to schedule public hearing on 9/4/74 Mrs. Pub 1:Irng the or<;1inance. Motion carried unanimously. -,--~ '3. 9/16/74 - -'2