Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />September 8, 1999 <br />Page 6 <br />Carlson stated there had been cul -de -sac locations where trails were not extended due to <br />concern with loss of property rights and privacy. <br />Ms. Carlson stated that she can see the ordinance needs to be changed. She noted that <br />while fencing for the pool is not an issue, fencing for the dog is an issue. Ms. Carlson <br />stated she also believed that fencing along the trails is an issue so she would abstain from <br />this decision. <br />Mr. Schilling stated he supports a compromise to allow a six -foot high fence in the back <br />yard and a four -foot fence in the side yard. <br />Acting Chair Lane made a MOTION to recommend approval of the variance request for <br />Sue Walseth, 6408 Cassiopeia Court, to allow a six foot high fence where allowed and <br />because of the trail and low lot elevation, to allow the balance of the privacy fence to be <br />five feet in height where it should be four feet in height. <br />A second to the motion was not offered. Thus, the mot <br />Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend denia t nce request, Sue Walseth, <br />6408 Cassiopeia Court, based on the rationale t es t meet the five required <br />Findings of Fact and to recommend that th ; .! a amended, and was supported by <br />Mr. Johnson. <br />Acting Chair Lane stated she conc unn that not allowing any variances is <br />too stringent for property owners eved a hardship exists. <br />Mr. Corson cautioned abo shing a precedent. <br />Mr. Dunn stated he sti <br />and if a variance <br />is made, then he <br />tains that every lot is unique since none are the same shape <br />d appropriate and been granted, and an exact same request <br />ort granting it again. <br />Mr. Smyser stated th with the last variance being mentioned, staff stated unequivocally <br />they did not support the variance. He clarified that in his conversation with Mr. Dunn he <br />had indicated that if the Zoning Ordinance was to be changed it could be brought to <br />Council but it would not happen in the immediate future since the Comprehensive Plan is <br />not yet in place. He advised that staff has been told numerous times at Council work <br />sessions to not piecemeal ordinance changes. He stated this is the direction from the <br />City's elected officials so staff would not recommend a single change to a single chapter <br />until the Comprehensive Plan issue is resolved. <br />Mr. Dunn stated he did not use the word "opposed" and advised that Ms Wyland had <br />previously indicated to him that staff felt no urgency to deal with this issue. He clarified <br />he never said "opposed" and unless a lot of the ordinance is changed, the Comprehensive <br />Plan has no impact on what is being discussed tonight. <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />