My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-24-96 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
07-24-96 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 4:49:12 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:57:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 24, 1996 <br />Scalze asked if it were possible to lay concrete block <br />without trespassinq on the mobilehome court property. <br />Duray did not believe so, but indicated he would <br />discuss this with the owner of the mobilehome court. <br />Duray also indicated he would do any restoration work <br />necessary on the east side of the fence. Duray <br />reported that he has had several conversations about <br />the fence with the owner of the mobilehome park. Duray <br />believed the owner would like to see the fence <br />improved, and would like it to remain the same height. <br />Scalze felt Duray has done a good job in working with <br />his neighbors in the past, pointing out that the <br />existing fence was erected in response to complaints <br />about noise from residents in the mobilehome park. <br />Fahey f.elt the mobilehome park would be pleased to have <br />the fence improved. <br />There was no one from the general public present <br />wishing to comment on this matter. <br />Upon motion by Fahey, seconded by Pedersen, the public <br />hearing was closed. <br />Morelan asked why the request was being processed as a <br />Conditional Use Permit rather than a Variance. <br />The City Planner reported that the Code allows special <br />purpose fences by CUP. This process was used rather <br />than the Variance process since it would be difficult <br />to show a hardship to justify approval of a variance. <br />The Planner also pointed out that the Code allows <br />fences to be placed on the property line with approval <br />of the adjacent neighbor. The Planner indicated that <br />he recommended a setback for the fence in order that <br />the backside could be maintained and as mitigation for <br />the height of the fence. <br />Morelan felt there were other options for mitigation, <br />such as turning some of the rock-faced block around to <br />break-up the look of the fence on its backside, or <br />painting the backside of the fence the same color as <br />the front. <br />Mr. LaValle introduced the following resolution and <br />moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 96-7-174 - APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE <br />PERMIT FOR SPECIAL PURPOSE FENCE AT THE I~IOGGSBREATH AS <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.