02/24/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Assistant Manager Mart,in called attention to staff evaluation of fencing regulations now going on because G f i__>rcblems in the past rela ting to fron t and side yard setbacks. That was expected to be completed before su~~er. He said this panel could ask in- clusion of review of chain Link fences ac!,7acent to rights-of-way in that evaluation. Councilwoman Beal thOll7ht. 12 the code provision was to protect vision clearance it could not apply to this i;lstance bec:'1use there was no obstruction. She was in favor of allowing th,= rence to remain and to review the code with respect to "vision clearance" as it would aryply to chain linh fences. Councilman Williams askef" :'!r. Ingerson if his client would be willing to accept a ninepmonth stay of juris:.r:el1t on the appeal , pending Council review of the ordinance dealing with fences obstructing vision at intersections. Hr. Ingerson said he would welcome it as an altern~tive to being denied pe=mission to retain the fence as it is. Mrs. Beal, howeve=, >las in favor of ~ranting a permanent variance, then looking at the code requireme~ts in the event of future similar situations. She didn't think it right to lea.....:; the Reynolds' "in limbo." Councilma!l ~'lilliams.. although he wasn't in favor of denying the fence as built, recalled a recent instance of granting a One.-year variance pending revie...., of the overall fencing regulations. Also, he questioned the issne of precedent if this type fence construction was determined inappropriate after review of the regulations. Mr. Ingerson pointed out that his clients feJ.i; there because there was no vision obstruction. The fence he said, to solve a problem and there was no intent was no violation of regulations was constructed in good faith, to circumvent the regulations. Recommenda ti on': ' . , 'Uphold the ,appeal, re\Terse the Zoning Code Board of Appeals decision denying the existing fence and permit the fence to remain as nOW constructed on the basis that a chain link fence in th~t l~~ation does not constitute a vision hazard and, accordingly, is not a violation of the code. In addition, creation of an unfenced area, with no one responsible for its maintenance, for purposes of vision clearance in this instance would n~t serve the best interest of the city. Carom 2/19/75 Approve e Staff was requested to include consideration of chain link fencing on corner lots in the overall review of fence regula- tions for firm clarification on which to base decision in the future in similar situations. 3. Assessments represented by: a. C.B.730 - Paving: sidewalks and storm sewer on Norkenzie Road from Cal Young ,Road to Belt Line Road (73-18) Protests and requests to be heard were received from John Willener, 2086 Nor- kenzie Road; Melvin and Pdtriaia Pello, 1760 Norkenzie Road (did not appear at hearing); William !!. and Doris McCulley, 1780 Norkenzie Road (did not appear at hearing); and DonalG N. Page, 1815 Norkenzie Road. e Bert Teize1, ci tll engineer f explained that an existing sewer stub was extended when Norkenzie Road vas widened. This stub would serve property in John riil1ener' s ownership at 2085 dorkenzie Road in addi tion to a stub serving Ur. vli1lener I s house. Mr. ,Teitzel said the extension to a point beyond the sidewalk was made as a matter of course in the construction project to avoid having to disturb the sidewalk construction at: some later date when the service was needed. No contact about this extension was made with Mr. Willener. Staff recommended waiving assessment for the extension at this time ($258.75), charging it to the property owner if and when the property was developed and the stub used. Mr. Teitzel added that ten feet of =iq:1t-of-way was purchased from Mr. Willener, and that the stub was extendec JA feet to clear the sidewalk. eR 2/21!/75 - 21