12/22/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mrs. Shirey wondered if this variance was similar to the one denied in October for a fence at 2080 Churchill Street. Public Works Director said it was a somewhat similar violation. Mrs. Shirey then wondered why one was granted a variance and the other was not. Assistant Manager explained that the variance - at 2605 Friendly was granted pending examination of requirements on fences in front yards and side yards. That examination has not been completed as yet due to the priority of other matters. Mrs. Shirey felt that the pending study should have been mentioned at the time of the 2080 Churchill appeal so that perhaps different consideration could have been given in that particular case. Public Works Director noted that, in that case, the appellant had gone through the appeal process twice before over a long period of time. To this date, there has still not been compliance with the order to remove the fence. Mr. Keller noted a technical point, that the city is not saying they approve of the fences. As Public Works Director pointed out, the variance granted at 2605 Friendly was not a true variance but rather a temporary one pending outcome of the study. Mr. Bradley would think it appropriate to contact the appellant who has not yet complied and advise him that his fence could be included in the variances granted pending outcome of the study. Mrs. Shirey agreed with that also. City Attorney said consideration should be given the fact that, on the fence at 2080 Churchill, notice was given by the city during construction that the fence would be in violation. That advice was ignored, the fence was built in defiance of the code and in full knowledge of same, and an attempt was made to keep it up through the variance process. By granting a variance, the ci ty could be getting into a credibility issue. Mr. Haws agreed with Mr. Long, saying he would be opposed to hearing the issue over again. e Mr. Williams feels that before any wholesale variances are granted, fences in question should be looked at to check location, site provisions, traffic, etc. Mr. Murray would agree, that "we should know what we are do.ing", being aware of all existing conditions with each fence. Mr. Bradley reiterated his feeling that the Churchill Street fence owner be contacted and advised he could hold off on compliance pending review of the whole matter by Council. Mr. Bradley moved to table the matter to the December 23 Committee meeting. Motion died for lack of a second. Vote was taken on the motion which carried, all Council members present voting aye except Mr. Hamel and Mr. Haws voting no. P. Water and Sewer Extension Ordinance Modification Requiring Application to Boundary commission Copy of proposed ordinance adding Section 2.212 and amending Section 7.050 has been distributed to Council. It provides for submission to the Boundary Commission of requests made for extraterritorial water service, provided the extension is consistent in all respects with adopted resolutions, policies, plans and ordinances. Boundary Commission legal staff interprets the law to mean that requests for water must be made by the governmental agency providing water, not by a private party desiring service. If requests do not conform to the policy set by the Council, city staff will not consider submission to the Boundary Commission. In the instance of Shade Oaks subdivision, though the city did not approve, the request could still be e submitted to the Boundary commission by the Willamette Water Company. The key is that the request has to be from an agency directly or indirectly responsible 12/22/75 - 11 tcto4-