02/24/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Also, in recognition of the legitimate concerns of the neighbors for safety of children, general quality of life, and appearance of the neighborhood, it was recommended that denial of the appeal ... be conditioned on Mr. Gedekal's (1) roofing the garage with a .., material siTJilar to that on the remainder of the building so that there is no visual separation between the garage and the rest of the building, (2) adding siding, painting and finishing materials to the garage so that appearance is. the same as the rest of the building,- (3) installation of landscaping plantings around the garage to screen it and protect the appearance of the general area. The Hearing Panel also strongly urged Mr. Gedekal to permit no autos to be parked between the driveway entrance and the garage because of the hazard involved as well as inconvenience to people in the neighborhood. 2.Appeal from Zoning Code Board of Appeals denial of variance allowing four-foot high cyclone fence at 22nd and Fillmore (Fred W. Reynolds) Gene Haxton, building department, explained that construction of a four-foot chain link fence on Fred Reynolds property at 1615 West 22nd Avenue was halted by building department inspector because of its violation of code restriction to 30-inch fence height. Appeal to the Zonin~ Code Board of Appeals resulted in decision calling for 30-inch fence at the corner of 22nd and Fillmore for vision clearance, allowing balance of the fence to be constructed at the four-foot height. Building department inspector later discovered the four-foot fence constructed without regard for the vision clearance area required by the Board's decision, and on second appeal the Zoning Board reaffirmed its previous decision to require the vision clearance at the corner - 30-inch height. Staff recommended at both hearings observance of the corner vision clearance because of reflected glare from chain link fences tinder certain conditions that would create a hazard. " e It was noted that penl member viewed the site on tour. Zoning Board minutes as they concerned the appeal on this issue by reference thereto were made apart of this record. Public hearing was opened. Max Ingerson, a'ttorney speaking for Mr. Reynolds, said the fence was bui 1 t because of the substantial nuisance created by school children crossing the property. He felt the four-foot chain link fence, installed under contract, did not constitute a vision obstruction and he called for a practical application of the code in this instance. Photos of the fenpe were presented. He said a 30-inch high fence would not give the protection desired. Also, leaving a clearance area at the corner unfenced would result in having to give up the property to the public and create a maintenance problem. A Mr. Reynolds, identifying himself as Fred Reynolds' son, noted that 3D-inch chain link fence was not available and would not solve the problem anyway. He noted incidents creating a nuisance for his parents and urged that the fence be allowed to remain at the four-foot height. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Mr. Haxton noted that there had been no objections to the fence from neighbors in the area. Staff was pursuing code enforcement in bringing the matter up, he said, ... and the,Board twice upheld code stipulations that vision clearance should be ob- ~ served. Mr. Haxton said no "bad" vision obstruction had been demonstrated in this instance. However, because of possibility of similar chain link fences in other areas of the city, staff felt it might be wise to review the code in that respect. 2/24/75 - 20, 88.