VN-240 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SP-120 November 15, 1984 Page I have contacted Al Bauer, Fire Chief for his concerns for the fence and he has in turn discussed the situation with. the applicant. A fence around the entire building may create more property loss because of the time it will take to cut the chain lock on the fence. The applicant is aware of this. Al Bauer, however, would like the Planning Commission to know that this type of fencing can cause. problems and should be discouraged as much as possible. STAFF CONCLUSION The app icant's request is consitent with Section 4-540 (c)(6), procedure for special .use permit: 1. The applicant has demonstrated a security need for the fence and a need to buffer the property from the adjacent tavern. 2. It appears the fence will not be detrimental to properties .since it encloses the yard area already used by Roseville Diesel... 3. The purpose of the fence regulations are to ensure orderly development, allow free flow of air, and prohibit unreasonable view restrictions while allow- ing each property owner privacy and security. The fence proposed by the applicant will not affect orderly development, especially since the fence is setback 141.4 feet from the Old Highway 8 property line and the existing berm obscures the view of some of the fence from Old Highway 8. The chain link fence provides security while not obstructing the free flow of air and not creating unreasonable v iew restrictions. Although the applicant's request does meet the requirements for a special use permit I have asked the applicant to be ready to explain why other fence configurations., consistent with the ordinance, will not work. I feel that in addition to the special use permit re- quirements. the Planning Commission should be fairly confident that other fencing configurations will not work for the applicant. RECOMMENDATION Motion to waive the reading and adopt the attached RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SP-120. Brenda A. Krueger City Planner