CC PACKET 01241984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-5- 1-No--one- e-lse--spoke either for--= or .aga-inst the variance -request and the 2 hearing was closed at 8:22 P.M. for. Commission consideration. 3 4 Commissioner Bjorklund reported he had visited the.- site and noted ".5'the -unique topography-- of the land -in that area made the fence seem 6. much, shorter than six feet and the protrusion -into, the front yard 7 -minimal. 9 .Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and .seconded by Commissioner Bowerman 10 to recommend the Council gr.ant , a� variance to the City Fence Ordinance 11 requirement that front, yard fences should be no higher than 4 ft. which 712-•would. .allow Philip Hoversten' to retain, but not. add to., the 6.. ft. 13 fence which partially extends out into his front yard at 2912-32nd -_ 14 Avenue N.E. , finding that: 15 1. It appears that the erection of the fence without a permit was an 16- inadvertent omission when another addition was being constructed '17 on the property. 18 19 2. The fence would not appear to have a detrimental effect on the 20 property and the unique topography of that particular area would 21 seem- to indicate there -would be no adverse- effect on the neighbors ' 22 properties or that a precedent for a similar variance in another 23 area would be set. 24 25 3. No opposition to the variance had been indicated by adjacent or 26 abutting property owners . 27 1 2,8-. Motion carried unanimously. 29 30 At 8:-27 P.M. , the Chair Pro Tem opened the public hearing t o consider 31 the request from -the new owners of- the, Anthony Court Townhomes that 32 they be permitted to retain the two identification signs which have 33 been erected -on their property across Silver Lake Road from Apache 34 Plaza, for which only one- sign is . permi;tted--by ordinance . He read °=35'` the. Notice of the Hearing which had gone out: to all-,property owners 36 within 200 feet of the subject property and had been published 37 February 9th in the Bulletin. . No one present indicated failure to 38 receive the notice or objected to its content. 39 40 ' Mr. Childs reported the two signs, which had been erected without 41 permit-by the developer of the townhomes , -Sid Johnson, just before 42 he sold that property, - did not meet the requirement of the Planned 43 Unit Development that only one sign was .permitted for the area governed 44 by that PUD. Fie confirmed that the townhomes were still under the PUD 45 even though they had been- rezoned for multiple dwelling use and said 46 there was also the matter of the signage for Craig Morris' hair 47 styling shop which was on a temporary basis permitted under the 48 same PUD to be considered. The Manager had indicated in his February 49 ..13th memorandum that the townhome signs would-probably not meet any •.50 • of the--dr-iteria for a ,var.iance,-and-=he.•.-had--included in the„agenda 51 Packet=--=excerpts of the. Commiss=ion and- Council minutes he :be-lieved • 52' were 'applicable to the Morris sign. 53 54 Mr. Bjorklund indicated he believed .there were more minutes which 55 referred to the discussions of the Morris signage, which, in every