PL MINUTES 02191985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-2- • 1 Mr. Hamer indicated to the Commissioners that it was the condition of the back yard 2 fence when it was erected without a permit with grass and dirt hanging from it and 3 tilting to the north which had prompted him to pursue the matter further. He 4 confirmed that "condition-wise; the fence could be considered to be substandard, 5 because it needs 'a lot more attention", but when it was first constructed, the 6 Department Head had indicated he perceived the fence had been built of materials 7 which met the City standards and in a manner which satisfied the City 's evaluation 8 as to workmanship and value to the neighborhood. Mr. Hamer reported he had taken 9 no pictures of the fence after the tornado and did not have a copy of his correspon- 10 dence with the property owners with him. He left at 7:45 P.M. 11 12 When Commissioner Bowerman commented that he perceived the crux of the matter was 13 the amount of damage. done to 'the fence, initially by the tornado, Mrs. Munayco 14 requested the Commissioners read the letter she had provided that evening from her 15 contractor. The Chair read the statement .from Freddie's Lawn Service which stated 16 that "less than 45% to 60% of the fence had been damaged* in the storm". Mr. Munayco 17 asked that the pictures of the fence as it appears now be shown to the Commissioners 18 so they could see how much work had been done on-the fence. The pictures were 19 passed around although a majority of the Commissioners indicated they had personally 20 visited the site. 21 22 Joe Mezzenga, 3511 Edward Street N.E. , testified that he agreed with Mr. Hamer that 23 "at least 75% of the fence was down after the storm He said "most of the fence 24 is in the back yard and most of that was down". The Munayco 's neighbor also told 25 the Commissioners that the original "rough cedar" panels had been replaced with 26 "smooth finish cedar", resulting in ' "a fence built with two different materials". • 27 28 Commissioner Hansen reiterated his January 15th statement that the Commission 29 should base itsrecommendation on whether "75% of the market value of the fence" 30 had been damaged by the storm. 31 32 At the request of Commissioner Bowerman, Mr. Childs went to the City offices to find 33 a copy of Mr. Hamer' s September 4, 1984 letter to Mr. and Mrs. Munayco. During his 34 absence, the hearing .was closed to further public input at 7:50 P.M. 35 36 Commissioner Bjorklund indicated his perception was that this fence should be con- 37 sidered as only one unit or major system, constructed with- the same style, materials, 38 ownership, location, and workmanship and he recommended the Commission make the 39 interpretation for this one special case where a precedent could not be set (there 40 being only one other fence in the City like this one) , "that the Munayco fence is 41 all- one structure". Commissioner Bowerman indicated that, after seeing the fence 42 firsthand, he could make the same interpretation. 43 44 Commissioner Madden .reported he had also visited the site and, from the street, had 45 noted .that the fence panels had been replaced with sections of different materials 46 and that the northside sections appeared to tilt towards the property to the north. 47 He concurred that the fence should be interpreted to be "one unit of construction", 48 for which a variance would be required if it was 75% damaged, and Commissioner Madden 49 said he would oppose granting that variance. 50 51 Commissioner Bowerman read Mr. Hamer's September 4th letter to Mr. and Mrs. Munayco • 52 informing them that. the City considered their damaged fence to be in non-conformance 53 with the City Fence Ordinance and outlining the action the property owners would 54 have to take to permit the fence to remain as it had been before the storm. 55