My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
3A Public Hearing 2008 0107
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2008
>
Packet 2008 0107
>
3A Public Hearing 2008 0107
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2008 12:47:48 PM
Creation date
1/15/2008 12:47:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Staff Report
Document Date (6)
1/7/2008
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2008 0107
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2008\Packet 2008 0107
MO 2008-001
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Minute Orders\2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December I3, 2007 <br />Agenda No. 07-23 Page 6 of 8 <br />Motion to Close Public Hearing <br />Dlugosh /Collier; b Ayes, 0 Noes, 1 Absent <br />Commissioner Ponder asked about the fence review to which Mr. Percival referred. <br />Secretary Livermore explained that this is the fence modification procedure, which <br />would apply to any project that does not specifically meet the requirements spelled nut in <br />Article 16. Via this process, the applicant would propose the fence, the City would notify <br />adjacent property owners to give them an opportunity to provide input, and then based on <br />information submitted, the City would decide. The City, she added, would tend to look <br />favorably where the neighbors in question had agreed on fencing. She said that the <br />language could be revised to indicate that any non-glass material above the three-foot <br />threshold be handled via the fence modification procedure. <br />Chair Reed indicated that he agrees with the Commissioners who do not like welded <br />wire as an option. <br />Commissioner Collier indicated agreement that any non-glass material above the three- <br />foot threshold should go through the fence modification process. <br />Commissioner Dlugosh noted that calcium deposits can build over time even on glass, <br />so the ordinance should include language that the glass would have to be maintained in a <br />transparent condition or replaced. <br />Motion to Forward to City Council with a Recommendation for Approval <br />Zoning Code Amendments to Article 16, Section 4-1682 related to <br />Fences, Walls and Hedges to Preserve Views in the RS-VP District <br />The proposed language reads as follows: <br />RS-VP District. In order to protect the existing view corridor, the maximum <br />height of a solid fence, wall or hedge in the RS-VP district shall be no more than <br />three (3) feet above finished grade at the property line between the uphill and <br />downhill properties, where the proposed fence, wall or hedge would be installed. <br />The portion of a permitted fence or wall above the heights of three (3) feet to a <br />maximum of seven (7) feet above the finished grade shall be constructed of glass <br />or other transparent material approved via the fence modification procedure and <br />maintained in its transparent condition or otherwise replaced so that it allows for <br />continued enjoyment of the view. Transparent materials do not include chain link, <br />mini-mesh, chicken wire, wood or lattice. Non-transparent structural materials <br />necessary for the support of the fence are permitted every four (4) feet. <br />Ponder /Collier <br />6 Ayes, 0 Noes, 1 Absent (Finberg) <br />Approved <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.