Laserfiche WebLink
1 PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> AUGUST 20 , 1991 <br /> PAGE 2 <br /> 4 <br /> 5 STAFF REPORT <br /> 6 <br /> 7 A letter was received from Mr. Shamp which addressed two <br /> 8 important issues, those being: the slope of the property <br /> 9 required for drainage and that the fence is an integral <br /> 10 part of the deck and it does not exceed the six foot <br /> 11 ' ' maximum requirement when measured from the top of -the <br /> 12 deck as compared to measuring from the ground. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 Urbia showed the Commission members photos of the project <br /> 15 which displayed some planned lattice which will be in <br /> 16 place in the future. Commissioner Murphy expressed some <br /> 17 concern regarding the compliance of the deck meeting code <br /> 18 and felt the height being considered would be over the <br /> 19 allowable height . <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Urbia advised that the Public works Director, Larry <br /> 22 Hamer , had 'observed that the fence may be too high and <br /> 23 recommended to Mr. Shamp he go through the variance <br /> 24 request procedure. It was noted that if the height were <br /> 25 measured from the top of the deck to the top of the fence <br /> 26 it would not be over the allowable height . If it were <br /> 7 measured from the natural grade it would be too high to <br /> comply with the ordinance. The City Manager and the <br /> Management Assistant advised this matter should be <br /> 30 reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Shamp took this <br /> 31 advice and made the request for the variance. <br /> 32 <br /> 33 Murphy inquired why the fence was installed before the <br /> 34 variance request had been submitted. Urbia responded that <br /> 35 the property owner had understood measurements would be <br /> 36 taken from the deck. Madden felt the concern of the fence <br /> 37 height is more appropriately viewed as a concern of the <br /> 38 neighbor who has to look at it and was not the <br /> 39 perspective of the one who erects it . He stated he does <br /> 40 not feel the ordinance held a narrow interpretation of <br /> 41 this regulation. <br /> 42 <br /> 43 Franzese observed there is some question what is defined <br /> 44 as a fence. She feels this project does not really <br /> 45 constitute a fence. Urbia reviewed the term "fence" and <br /> 46 noted that it is not defined in the ordinance. <br /> 47 <br /> 48- Murphy inquired if a deck design is addressed in the <br /> 49 ordinance. Urbia did not know if it were. <br /> 50 <br /> 51 Franzese cautioned that if this were not viewed as a <br /> 52 fence the Commission could be opening up opportunities <br /> for anyone to do anything they wanted. There could be <br /> negative fallout by not interpreting this as a fence. <br />