CC MINUTES 07271982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-14- would be much more expensive , and pointed out that residential fences are normally no higher than -five feet. Mr. Soth confirmed there would • be no problem with the PUD since Mr. Lee 's prpoerty would still be part of the PUD, and in conformance with the new Fence Ordinance , the fence would have to be constructed on Mr. Lee 's property, if he owns it. He read the original Concept Plan wording "A pedestrian barrier is to be provided of chain link fencing between the commercial and residential areas . . . " which, in his opinion, precludes the necessity for any further public hearings and the Attorney said his research of associated materials had failed to .indicate exactly where the PUD required landscaping. Mr. Lee said he intends to terrace the rear of his property. Councilman Enrooth wondered if -the proceeds of the $3,200 Letter of Credit, which are being- held by. the City , could not be used to compensate Mr. Lee for the additional cost of installing a six foot fence . Mr. Soth reiterated that the PUD did not specifically require the fence to be six feet tall , but Councilman Ranallo indicated he couldn' t see how the .City could require less than a six foot fence be built by Mr. Lee when Mr. Hedlund was going to be required to provide a fence of that height. The Mayor conif rmed that, "the City would bear the additional costs of constructing a six foot fence , with no slats ,. where Mr. Lee has pro- posed building a five foot fence , " recalling the Council had agreed slatting should not be required because fencing of this type has not held up over the years-. Staff was directed to inform Mr. Morris , the proprietor of the hair styling shop at 3909 Silver Lake Road that, unless the fencing required for the side yards�i of his property is installed within 30 days , the proceeds of .the Letter of Credit will be used to do the job. Motion by Mayor Sundland and seconded by Councilman Marks to direct staff to cause a six foot = chain link fence with no slats to be installed, as per Council direction, on the property at 3904 Penrod Lane within 30 days . Motion carried unanimously . Councilman Marks indicated he did not believe the conditions , related to the hardship which the Ordinance would cause for Walter Parkins if he were not granted a five foot variance to build the garage addition he proposes , had been adequately addressed by the Planning Commission in their motion recommending approval. Mayor Sundland observed that the City is always complaining about vehicles parked outside but Council- man Ranallo questioned whether the garage would actually have to be more than 43 feet in length to provide for four vehicles . The Parkins ' were not present for the discussion. Motion by Councilman Enrooth and.- seconded by- Councilman - Ranallo to table the action on the Parkins request until such time as the Planning Commission can be more specific as to the hardship they believe would be demonstrated if the Parkins ' request for a five foot variance were not granted: • Motion carried unanimously .