Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />July 12, 2017 <br />Page 3 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />the landscape buffer is only required between a residential and commercial <br />property. <br /> Mr. Evenson stated that he was not sure that one could see a fence. <br /> Ms. Larsen agreed and stated it is a difficult question and that Mr. Larsen had a <br />good point. <br /> Mr. Evenson stated that he thought that the fence on the east side of the lot would <br />squeeze the home in. He also commented that the business has been a good <br />neighbor. <br /> Mr. Stimpson stated that he likes this type of development and that other business <br />should look more like this. He also stated that the Lake Drive access can be <br />difficult to get in and out of. He stated that his main comment is around the <br />fencing and moving the privacy fence over to where the security fence is <br />proposed. He asked about the irrigation and the stormwater pond and the fence <br />placement with regards with irrigation. <br /> Ms. Larsen stated that [the applicant] does not have to irrigate the pond area, but <br />if the area is sodded there would need to be irrigation. She stated that staff would <br />have to take a look at possibly adding an extra irrigation pipe for landscaping and <br />gathering more information on past practices. <br /> Chair Tralle asked if those who are building the house adjacent to the proposal are <br />here tonight. They were not present at the meeting. <br /> Mr. Masonick asked if there was a fence line between the old and new property <br />that currently exists. <br /> Mr. Carlson, the applicant, stated that there is one there today. <br /> Mr. Stoesz asked what hours of operations were permitted in the area. <br /> Ms. Larsen stated that there are no limits on hours of operation for commercial <br />properties. <br /> Mr. Laden asked how visible the accessory building is to both Lake Drive and <br />Kelly Street. <br /> Ms. Larsen stated that if the privacy fence was built that most of the building <br />would be obscured by the privacy fence, but the top of the structure would still be <br />visible. <br /> Mr. Laden stated that he recommends that the materials or color be consistent <br />with the primary building if it is visible. He also wanted to clarify the materials on <br />the proposed elevations and the labeling on the elevations. <br /> Ms. Larsen agreed that the elevations needed to be amended. <br /> Mr. Laden asked about if the garbage area needed to be integral with the primary <br />building. <br /> Ms. Larsen stated that there needs to be more looked at, but agreed that the area <br />should be moved. <br /> Mr. Laden stated he was concerned with fence materials on Lake Drive. <br /> Ms. Larsen stated that it was a security and chain link fence which would be <br />permitted under code, but the slats would not be. <br /> Mr. Laden asked if the City will be requiring landscaping on the street side of the <br />fence on Lake Drive.