Laserfiche WebLink
. � <br /> MINUTES OF THE . <br /> .ORpNO PLANNING COMNIISSION <br /> Tuesd�y,January 16,2007 • • <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#07-3260 Roger O'SI►at�ghnessy, Continued) <br /> the concern that ihe property is an attraction and draws people to the site,but that tliere are hees in the <br /> . area and a 42-iiich fence would be a sufficient barrier. Kempf staied a wrou�ht iron fence is probably less <br /> inirusive but unforhinately does not meet the City's ordinance. � <br /> O'Sllaughnessy stated the landscape architect perhaps interpreted the code incorrectly Uut that tliere is � <br /> some ambiguity in tlie code regarding comer lots and that it should read that it is only along county roads ' <br /> . that a higher fence is allowed. O'Shaughnessy stated it was a legitimate mistake and that denial of his <br /> variance would require a substantial amount of fence to be removed and replaced. . <br /> Ralui stated the fence seems reasonable and is not out of cliaracter with the neighborhood.�Rahn stated <br /> given the examples cited by the applicant for security,he would not Ue opposed to the fence. Rahn <br /> commenfied the City's fence ordinance in his opinion does need some iweaking but,that now is not the <br /> tinie. Rahn suggested this iteni be�laced on a firture Planning Conimission work session. <br /> Winer stated she agrees with the need for the fence fi•om a security standpoint from the road as well as <br /> , from the lake and that given the level of architecti.tral detail of the house,it is easy to see how the property • <br /> � otivner could overlook this detail regarding the fence. , <br /> Kempf stated there are a number of incredible properties that draw people and that perhaps the City <br /> should look at changing their ordinance to address security. Kempf stated'the City has not chosen to � <br /> write their ordinances to address a person's desire for security. , <br /> Ralm stated the.City should afford a person's right to privacy to every resident. <br /> Kempf stated in his opinion the City should look at changing the ordinance prior to approving this <br /> � application. . . • • <br /> Ralui stated the perception of one's security should not be a city issue and should be a personal issue and � <br /> that the city's fence ordinance could Ue tweaked. <br /> Curtis stated the Plamiing Commission could recommend that the ordinance Ue changed in the future as . <br /> part of this application. <br /> Winer inquired whether ihe fence heiglit with conier lots has come up in the past. <br />. � Gaffron stated the City's code reads as follows: "A fence iiot exceeding six feet in height may be located <br /> along the sireet lot line of a lake fiontage lot which abuts a major thorouglifare." Gaffroii stated it is <br /> possiUle the language could Ue inter�reted that since the lot aUuts a inajor thoroughfare, any street lot line <br /> could have a six-feet fence. Gaffron stated this is a unique lot and unique layout where you not only abut <br /> � a county road bu1:also a minor neighborl�ood road. Gaffi•on stated this type of feilce does fit the character <br /> of the neighborhood in his o�inion and that this is a situation where the feuce should remain. <br /> PAGE 18 ' <br />