PL MINUTES 02191985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-3- 1 Chair Franzese then asked for a motion based on the two options presented by the • 2 City Manager. 3 4 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Madden to recommend 5 that the City Council deny the request from Rosemary and Victor Munayco. for a two 6 foot front yard fence variance for a six foot front yard fence in front of their 7 home at 3507 Edward Street N.E. , where only a four foot fence is allowed by the 8 Fence Ordinance, basing the recommendation for denial on 'the interpretation that the 9 existing fence around the Munayco property was originally constructed as "one 10 Piece of goods", with unity of style, design, workmanship, materials, location, •11 and oWnership. in the front, sides and rear yards of the property and that this 12 specific fence was constructed as a single entity and ceased to remain a single 13 entity in. the late spring and summer of 1984 when, the testimony was heard, in 14 excess of 75% of the market value of the fence, as interpreted by the Planning 15 Commission, was destroyed. The Planning Commission 's interpretation therefore, is 16 that the existing fence is now in non-conformance and subject to the current 17 City Fence Ordinance requirements for front yard fences. 18 19 In recommending denial , the Commission finds further that: 20 21 1 . Sufficient public input from neighbors, staff, and Commission members was 22 received during the January 15th and 19th Commission hearings that granting the 23 variance would not relieve a particular physical hardship; 24 25 2. The variance could not be based on the applicants ' replies to the three 26 questions on the application form, which must be answered in the affirmative • 27 for a variance to be granted; and 28 29 3. Granting the variance for a six foot front yard fence could set a dangerous 30 precedent for handling future requests of this nature. 31 32 The Planning Commission further recommends that City staff be requested to cite 33 the owners of the fence to bring it up to the standards set by the City codes for 34 quality of maintenance, condition, and workmanship and to locate the fence on the 35 owned property. 36 37 Motion carried unanimously. 38 39 At 8:03 P.M. , the Chair opened the public hearing to consider a request from James 40 R. Tjernlund, 3124 Silver Lake Road, for a five foot variance to the total sideyard 41 setback requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance which would allow him to con- 42 struct a 23 foot X 26 foot garage and room addition to the south side of the 43 existing structure at 3124 Silver Lake Road. The proposed addition would allow for 44 a 6 foot'setback on the north side and a four foot setback on the south side, for 45 a total sideyard setback of 10 feet where 15 feet are required by Ordinance. 46 47 The Chair read the notice of the hearing which had gone out to all property owners 48 of record within 200 feet of the subject property. No one reported failure to 49 receive the notice -or objected to its content. Mr. Childs indicated he had 50 received no calls about the proposal . 51 • 52 The seven foot room addition he proposes would open out to his existing kitchen, 53 Mr. Tjernlund said and he would have a side entrance off Silver Lake Road. From 54 the perspective of the neighbor to the south, the applicant said he did not intend 55 to raise any elevations and there should be no problems with water runoff from the 56 19 foot garage.