10/27/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to reaffirm the ~urrent city Comm Council policy and indicate that extension of water ~erv~ce to ~he 10/15/75 ~ Shade Oak Subdivision would be contrary to such pol~cy as outl~ned Approve in the 1990 Plan. Sally Weston, 2595 Highland Drive, repr~senting the~Ledgue of Women Voters, stated that it would be useful to EWEB ~f the Counel1 wou~d express itself, as EWEB is an arm of the city and they feel the c~ty needs to set policy they then implement. In answer to Mr. Bradley, the Boundary commission must approve any water t .' . EWEB cannot proceed without that approval., a. 1 though EWEB may ex ens~on, d C . . not necessarily be required to extend water s'ervice upon Boun ary omrruss~on authorization. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. F. Segregation of Assessments - N.E. Corner 11th and Bertelsen - Nolan and Flo~ence Schied (S-75-7) Comm 10/22/75 Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Mur~ay to approve. Motion carried Approve unanimously. G. Panel Report on Fence Appeal - 2080 Churchill Street (October 20, 1975) Present: Counci-lmen J/aws (presid.iny) and Hamol; Staff: Gene Haxton. 4It Appeal from Zoning Code Board of Appeals denial of variance for fence at 2080 Churchill Street - Ray Schaaf Request to allow fence in violation of City' Code at 2080 Churchill Street was denied by Zoning Board of ~ppeals on September 11, 1975, another request f0C the same ,,'ariance having been denied in May'1972. No, ex parte contacts or other reasons for conflict of interest were declared by panel members. Records of the building department and minutes of Zoning Board for September 11, 1975 were made a,part of this record by reference thereto. Copies of September 11 Board minutes were previously furnished to panel members. Mr. Haxton explained that tIll"! appeal was brought to the Counci 1 for the> second time upon request of the appe.1lant. The fence at issue was constructed wi thin the setback area in excess of the height limitations, and the variance was denied by the ~ard on the basis of lack of showing of hardship and an indication by the neighborhood that code enforcement was desired. Mr. Haxton sa,id the appellant, Ray Schaaf, was told the question could be resolved by reTTOving the fence or lower- ing its height to cOlnply with the code. However, appellant decided to bring an ,appeal to the Council to maintain the fence in its present condItion rather tilan to request a waiver with setback of at least six feet and landscaping to pro~ide an equal aesthetic situation. In both instances - 1972 and present - the appellant chose to seek a direct variance from the code provisions. Mr. Haxton' continued that staff was now in position to prosecute both the property owner and tenant (Richard Schaaf, son of the appellant) for maintaining an illeqal fence. Action was suspended pending outcome of this appeal. The staff is obligated, he said, to actively enforce the code and resolve the issue. ~ In answer to Councilman Haws, Mr. Haxton said the specific viol~tion was a fence ~ constructed and maintained in excess of 30" within the front yard setback. Public hearing was opened. 10/27/75 - 11 S/:J3