CC MINUTES 02261985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-4- about the selection of firms to repair their homes and were informed that it would be necessary for any- contractor who would operate in the City to have a contractors license with the City and' a building permit to do any repair work. The City had perceived before the storm that issuing contractors licenses was the only way the City could prevent just what had happened to the applicants where the contractor had taken their money and failed to do the work, the Munaycos were told. In response to Mrs. Munayco's statement that her second contractor had not applied for a building permit because he had never received her call telling him that was necessary, Councilman Ranallo told her he believed any reputable contractor would know he had to be licensed and get a building permit for any city in which he was working. The Councilman also commented that the Council would have to weigh" , the Public Works Director's determination related to the amount of damage done to the Munayco fence against the statement of that contractor related to his own perception of the extent of the fence damage. However, Mrs. Munayco was assured that it was not the City's position that she was trying to get away with anything or was it the intention of the Council to embarrass her, but rather that it was the responsibility of the Council to follow the dictates of the City's Fence Ordinance, which allows only four foot front yard fences. The petitioner was also advised that, even if she had applied for a building permit in May, it was more than likely she would not have been allowed to retain the six foot fence in her front yard. The Munaycos were then advised that they would be given until spring to get the fence rebuilt in a manner which would meet the standards of quality established by the City Ordinance for any City structure. Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Councilman Enrooth to follow the rec- ommendations of the Planning Commission to deny the request from Rosemary and Victor Munayco for a two foot front yard fence variance to the City Fence Ordinance requirement for front yard fences no higher than four feet, ,to retain the existing six foot fence in the front yard of their home at 3507 Edward Street N.E. , accepting the Commission interpretation that the existing fence around the Munayco property had originally been constructed as "one piece of goods" with unity of style, design, workmanship, materials, location, and ownership in the front, sides, and rear yards of the property and that, this specific fence was constructed as a single entity and ceased to remain an entity in the late spring and summer of 1984, and that in excess of 75% of the market value of the fence was destroyed, as testified to during the Commission's February 19th hearing. 'In denying the variance, the Council also accepts the Commission interpretation that the existing fence is now in non-conformance and subject to the current City Fence Ordinance requirements for front yard fences. The Council further finds, as did the Planning Commission, that: 1 . Sufficient public input from neighbors, staff, Commission and Council members had been received during the January 15 and February 19, 1985 considerations of the variance that granting that variance would not relieve a particular physical hardship resulting from the City Ordinance; 2. The variance could not be based on the applicants' replies to the three questions on the application, which must be answered affirmatively for a variance to be granted; and • 3. Granting the variance for a six foot front yard fence could set a dangerous precedent for handling future requests of this nature.