Laserfiche WebLink
.M l»ITBS OF THB PLMmiHG OOMNISSIOM !TIH6 SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 <br />ZOHIRG FILE 81301HIBITE COETIMI <br />upon the stipulation that applicant's lot line be moved as <br />necessary to meet the 2-acre dry buildable requirement should the <br />17* right-of-way create a deficit. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays*0, <br />motion passed. <br />#1310 HOMARD F. EISIMGER <br />3245 NATXATA BOOLEVARD <br />REEBIIAL COPDITIGHAL OSE P1SRM1T <br />SBCOED REVIEM <br />Chairman Kelley stated that the applicant requested tabling <br />this matter because personnel from Park Construction were unable <br />to attend. Zoning Administrator Mabusth confirmed that and added <br />that all concerned parties would attend the October 3, 1988 <br />Planning Commission Meeting. <br />#1318 SOAD H. AZAHARI <br />1745 FOX STRSST <br />VARIAWIBS <br />OOETIEUATIOM OF PUBLIC HEARIEG <br />Applicant was present for this matter. <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that this matter <br />involved a height variance for a wall/fence. The highest portion <br />of the wall is 8-1/2 feet where 3-1/2 feet is the maximum <br />allowed. The wall creates no sight distance problems. Chairman <br />Kelley questioned if the gate was for security purposes. <br />Applicant answered affirmatively. Kelley wanted to know why <br />there was a rail fence along the lot line to the east. Mabusth <br />interjected that it was for the purpose of keeping unwanted <br />traffic off of the applicant's property. Kelley asked why a 3- <br />1/2' fence would not be sufficient to keep traffic out? The <br />applicant stated that a 3-1/2* fence would not work as well, and <br />the fence was already nearly completed. <br />Planning Commission member Bellows stated that she had no <br />objection to such a proposal when it did not interfere with <br />vision of the road. The gates were suitable for the property. <br />Bellows knew of a similar situation wherein the 3-1/2* fence did <br />nothing to curtail traffic. A 8-1/2' fence seemed more <br />intimidating. <br />It was moved by Planning Commission member Hanson, seconded <br />by Planning Commission member Bellows, to recommend approval of <br />#1318. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays*0, Motion passed. <br />#1319 RARER FULLER <br />4055 ELM STREET <br />RENEWAL VARIANCE <br />CORTIRUATIOR OF PUBLIC HEARING <br />The applicant was not present for this matter. <br />It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning