PL MINUTES 01151985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-3- 1 The hearing was officially opened at 8:00 P.M. with. the staff report from Mr. 2 Childs which reiterated much of the information contained 'in hi.s January 3 11th memorandum detailing the circumstances under which the existing fence, which 4 had been damaged..by the Apri-1 tornado and subsequently damaged further by winds 5 this summer, had been deemed by .the Public Works Director to require a variance 6 since its protection under the "grandfather. law" had been, in Mr. Hamer 's opinion, 7 lost because the fair market value of the fence damage had been more than 75%. 8 9 As stated in his memorandum,. the Manager reiterated that the Fence Ordinance had 10 been written in response to the neighbors' objections to thesix foot height in the 11 front yard of this fence and another on Pahl Avenue. He also mentioned that the 12 Commission might find the similarities between this case of tornado damage and the 13 Hertog and Johnson florist operations which were considered to be 75% damaged in the 14 same storm. 15 16 At this point, Commissioner' Bjorkl.und- interjected his request that the record should 17 state that it is his opinion that the 'City Ordinance does not conform in this 18 regard to the standards set by other communities around the City who consider 50% 19 damage as qualifying .for termination of non-conforming uses. Commissioner Bowerman 20 responded that whether or not the City Ordinance was correct- was not the issue 21 before the Commission that evening, but rather their recommendation had to be based 22 on the 75% figure set in the Ordinance.. Commissioner Bjorklund agreed that amending 23 the Ordinance should .be taken care of another time but indicated he felt the 24 Commission had to use commonsense in their deliberations that evening. 25 26 Mrs. Munayco reiterated much of the information included in the copy of her November • 27 letter explaining what had happened to the fence during the storm and later during 28 the summer while she was waiting for the contractor she had hired to repair the 29 fence which had been included in the agenda packet. Her contention was that while 30 a good deal of the tornado damage was done to the fence in back, there was only one 31 panel of fence blown down in the front yard at that time. She further contended that 32 there had been very little damage' to the wood itself, but rather the problem was 33 only that portions of the fence were blown down. None of the posts were blown she 34 said. She drew a sketch of her- home and fence on' the blackboard and illustrated 35 just which panels the tornado .had blown down and which went down later that summer. 36 Mrs. Munayco said only seven of a total of 73 panels had to be replaced, although 37 some of the. wood had to be replaced in other panels . Mrs. Munayco blamed the delay 38 in putting up the .fence on the contractor she. had hired in June and who failed to 39 do the work. In 'the fall , she hired another contractor who repaired the fence 40 but did not get a permit. 41 42 Joe -Mezzenga', who said he lives next door to the Munaycos at 3511 Edward_Street N.E. , 43 indicated he doesn"t believe the six foot fence, which "looks like a stockade" in 44 front is appropriate for a residential neighborhood. His testimony differed from 45 Mrs. Munayco' s testimony that the greater damage was done after the tornado, in that 46 he insisted "a lot of the fence was knocked down by the tornado and lay on the 47 ground for a .long- time during which more of. the fence was blown down". He showed 48 pictures he had .taken within the last week which showed the fence as stained and 49 poorly maintained even after it was rebuilt. Mr. Mezzenga insisted the fence had 50 downgraded the value of his :;own home. Mr. Mezzenga did testify, however, that 51 "nota l of .of the front fence was down at any time". 52 53 Mr. Childs told the Commission it was up to them to make the interpretation of 54 whether the ordinance intended to include the entire fence as one structure or 55 considered the 75% figure for only the non-conforming portion. When Commissioner 56 Jones later requested the -matter. be tabled so the Commission could get the benefit 57 of the Council 's interpretation, the Manager told him that the duty of interpreting 58 the Ordinance remained with the Commission.