Laserfiche WebLink
AT" <br />r <br />mmms op the pimhxiig cohhissioh TIH6 HELD MAT 18, 1987 <br />#1147 BIXXM OIHTIE • j <br />Theresa Bloom was oresent and reiterated the hardship of <br />no privacy in their house during fallr winter, and <br />spring. They propose to replace the existing lilac <br />bushes with a 6' fence and arborvidae plantings. <br />Chairman Kelley noted that arborvidae in itself is a <br />great means for privacy without a fence. He is opposed <br />to alot of fencing and prefers natural screening. <br />Cohen felt that the large lilac should provide adequate <br />privacy. <br />It was noted that the applicant does not currently live <br />in this residence on a year around basis. <br />Taylor agreed that it was a very crowded area and felt <br />it was a legitimate hardship in this case. He <br />recommended that the lilac bushes remain and construct <br />the fence behind the lilac. <br />Hanson concurred with Taylor*s recommendation. <br />Bellows also concurred with Taylor especially if the <br />fence is appropriately placed. <br />There were no comments from the public regarding this <br />matter and the public hearing was closed. <br />Motion 1 - <br />It was moved by Taylor, seconded by Johnson, to allow 6* <br />fence to be located on south side of lilac bushes, with <br />applicant executing a hold-harmless agreement, and no <br />road dedication required. Motion, Ayes 2, Nays 5. <br />Motion fails. <br />Motion 2 - <br />It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Brown, to allow 6* <br />fence to be located 5* from the front property line at <br />the west end, gradually getting closer to the lot line <br />to a point 12* directly out from the jog in the house, <br />and there ending; applicant to execute a hold-harmless <br />agreement, and no road dedication required. Motion, <br />Ayes 3, Nays 4. Motion fails. <br />Motion 3 - <br />It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to <br />recommend denial of the variance request but would allow <br />only a 3-1/2* fence as allowed by code. Motion, Ayes 2, <br />Nays 5. Motion fails. <br />No further motions were made and Planning Commission <br />referred the application to Council for their review. <br />.1