PL MINUTES 01151985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-4- • 1 When Mr-. Childs indicated, Mr. Hamer had considered the whole fence as the "structure" 2 in making the 75% determination of damage, Commissioner Bowerman indicated he 3 disagreed with that determination, .saying .he believed only the figure should have 4 been applied to only the port ion of the fence which was . noh=conforming. The 5 Commissioner continued by stating that if the Commission accepts Mr. Mezzenga's 6 testimony that the majority of the damage was done to the back fence,- which is 7 built in conformance with the City Ordinance, it would be his opinion that it would 8 not be necessary. for the Munayco"s to get a variance for the front fence which is 9 still a legally installed non-conforming use. under the Ordinance. Commissioner 10 Bowerman told Commissioner Bjorklund that the fact that the pictures prove the fence 11 is unsightly and poorly maintained is not really germane to the issue before the 12 Commission that evening. Commissioner Jones stated that in his opinion, even if 13 the front fence were cut down to. four feet; it would not erase the neighbor opposi- 14 tion to it because of its appearance. Commissioner Madden indicated he agreed with 15 Commissioner Bowerman that the Commission should not concern itself with the 16 appearance of the fence. 17 18 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Bowerman to recommend 19 that the Council make the interpretation that 75% destruction of the front yard 20 fence at 3507 Edward Street K.E. had not. occurred and that the pre-existing permitted 21 legal non-conforming use is still protected. The Commission, however, notes that 22 other fence portions which are not involved in the variance request may be in 23- violation of the City's Fence Ordinance regarding maintenance, structural condition, 24 and state of repair, etc. In- recommending- this interpretation, the Commission has 25 taken into account the testimony of, both the proponent and one opponent which C, 216.- indicated that significantly less than 75% damage was sustained to the. front yard 27 fence. --—- 28 ---- - -- -- - - -- — —------ - 29 Commissioner Madden continued .in his belief that the condition of the fence should 30 not be an _issue in the motion but rather that the matter should be referred to the 31 Public Works Director for enforcement of the ordinance which -properly addresses 32 the condition and maintenance of fences. Commissioner Hansen indicated he perceived 33 key word in this consideration as well as in the action taken related to the florist 34 operations damage in the same storm, should be whether there was 75% of the fair 35 market value damage done. 36 37 Commissioner Jones spoke against the motion indicating his interpretation of the - - - 38 ordinance was that the whole integral fence should be considered one structure and 39 suggestedthematter be tabled for another month so the Commission could get the 40 benefit of first hand testimony of Larry Hamer about the .tornado damage, etc. 41 The Commissioner then indicated he sawa direct connection with this issue and the 42 Hertog property damage where the City had rul.ed the one side was 75% destroyed and 43 could not be r.eplaced .but continued to let the Hertog's operate their business, even 44 if temporarily, on the other side of the street, a decision he is opposed to. 45 46 Commissioner Madden then made a motion to table the recommendation on the Munayco 47 fence for a month, which Commissioner. Jones seconded. 48 49 Voting on the motion to table: 50 51 Ayer Madden, Jones, Hansen and Franzese. • 52 53 Nay: Bjorklund and Bowerman. 54 55 Motion to table carried.