05-15-2000 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17,2000 (#2573 David and Marti Biodgett, Continued) street. Hawn stated In her opinion the majority of the fence should not obstruct a ? jrst n's view. Stoddard commented It sounds like the City ’s application forms did not delinr .lo the ^ • uack requirements. Bottenberg Indicated the information the Applicant is referring to is attached as Exuibit I. Blodgett indicated they would like to construct a fence in order to obtain some privacy and is consistent with the other fences in the neighborhood. Blodgett stated he was attempting to avoid the need for a variance until he was notified of the 30 foot setback requirement. Nygard expressed concerns that the Applicant has commenced to construct a fence which exceeds the City's standards even though he has been informed of the height restrictions. Nygard stated some other issues for consideration is a parking spot that is elevated next to a retaining wall, and a fence would obstruct the vision of a person traveling over the hill if a fence is constructed on top of It. Nygard noted the fence is to be 3.5 feet from the ground level. Blodgett stated his fence posts and boards have not yet been trimmed to meet the 3.5 foot requirement. Nygard inquired where the Applicant was measuring the 3.5 feet from. Blodgett stated the only place he was out of compliance was in that 30 foot section. Nygard commented it is his opinion there are other sections of the fence that exceed the City's requirements. Hawn stated the building Inspector can inspect the fence to see whether it exceeds the City's requirements. Nygard stated all of the boards currently installed by the Applicant exceed 42 inches, noting he has installed 48 inch boards. Nygard stated the fence needs to be measured from the ground level. Lindquist suggested the fence be inspected by the building inspector to insure compliance. Hawn agreed that this matter should be reviewed by the building inspector. Hawn stated it is up to the Planning Commission to give direction to the Applicant on what requirements need to be met regarding his proposed fence and that it is up to the building inspector to see that the requirements are then complied with by the property owner. Blodgett commented he is attempting to have a fence that is consistent with his neighbors.] Hawn expressed regret that the Applicant apparently was not given all the information necessary In order to comply with the setback requirements, noting that there is not ample Justification for changing the City standards at this time. Hawn stated the Planning Commission needs to consider whether this fence will create a tunnel effect along this road. Lindquist stated he has voted for other fences in this area, noting he will support this fence. Lindquist stated the concerns raised are legitimate issues. Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2573, David and Pasc 22 I i