Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JULY 11, 1991 <br />Garske suggested that the fence be limited to 4 feet at <br />the highest elevation of the property and could taper <br />up to 6 feet at the lower elevations. <br />Marche stated that this would not work since the <br />property tapers down at both sides and traffic noise is <br />coming from these areas. Marche reported that when he <br />purchased his property it was zoned residential. <br />Marche felt that he was a victim of a zoning change. <br />Marche stated that his main concern was traffic noise, <br />and pointed out the traffic counts he submitted. <br />Drabik asked if landscaping could be done in front of <br />the fence or if the fence was too close to the road to <br />allow for landscaping. <br />Grittman reported that landscaping would have to occur <br />on the Marche property, therefore, the fence would have <br />to be set back from the property line. <br />Herkenhoff asked if there were alternatives to fencing. <br />The City Planner replied that plant materials will not <br />have an impact on traffic noise. <br />Garske pointed out the neither the sight of the side of <br />a mini - storage building, nor a fence would be very <br />pleasing. <br />Drabik stated that she was also concerned about the <br />rest of the City and setting a precedent. <br />Herkenhoff felt a hardship existed in this instance due <br />to the zoning change. <br />Drabik pointed out that in addition to the County Road <br />C area, there are properties on Country Drive to <br />consider as well. <br />Garske asked Marche if a 4 foot fence would be <br />feasible. <br />Marche replied that the sides of his lot are lower and <br />that is where the noise is coming from. <br />Drabik asked if Marche would be willing to stagger the <br />boards of the fence. <br />Marche replied that he wanted to put the boards all on <br />one side of the fence since that will eliminate the <br />most noise. <br />Page 3 <br />