Laserfiche WebLink
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d <br />A p r il 13 , 200 5 <br />Page 7 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />association. 13. The maximum building height of 45 feet will be added to the design <br />standards. 14. City staff to continue to work with the developer on the treatment on the <br />perimeter of the property. <br /> <br />Mr. Pogalz stated he did not have a problem with the fence being continuous as long as it <br />was maintained, it was maintenance free and not wood, and there was landscaping to both <br />the front and back of the fence. Mr. Bengts on suggested that the sc reening wall along the <br />residential properties be solid and beyond the re sidential properties, they could entertain <br />breaks in between. <br /> <br />Vice Chair Tralle stated the ne ighbors wanted a solid fence in their area and they had to <br />live with this and he believed they needed to accommodate what th e neighbors wanted. <br /> <br />Mr. Hyden stated for security reasons, a so lid fence was a prudent thing to do along the <br />residential area. He agreed that the fe nce should be broken up beyond the residential <br />properties with landscaping. <br /> <br />Mr. Pogalz stated he wanted to see the materials of the fence upgraded with landscaping <br />on both sides. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden asked if the fence was on the pr operty line or was it on a 10-foot setback. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson suggested they have an aesthetic pleasing fence, so it was not a solid wall <br />with no architectural features. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden asked if the fence was a part of the design standard. Mr. Bengtson replied it <br />was mentioned, but it was not a design standard. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden suggested staff work with the deve loper on the fence and add it to the design <br />standards. He expressed concern ab out a long fence along Apollo Drive. <br /> <br />Mr. Bengtson stated he was c oncerned about the maintenanc e of the landscaping on the <br />backside of the fence because this could be a burden to the applicant to get onto <br />residential property to ma intain the landscaping. <br /> <br />Vice Chair Tralle asked if the developer w ould be willing to wo rk with the neighbors <br />about concerns regarding the fencing and come up with a solution that both parties could <br />live with. Mr. Piette replied he would be willing to do this. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden asked how they should address not seeing the buildings. He suggested that <br />one or more Board members look at this with staff. He asked if the design standards <br />were good enough. <br /> <br />Mr. Rafferty approached the podium and stat ed the only thing he saw as a burden was <br />because this was a review process, he saw no reason that each pad as it was developed <br />should not come back to the Board for review. <br />