VN-240 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- 3 Commissioner Erickson noted that although the berm nicely screens the area it also affects police protection by not making the property very visual from the street. Motion.. by Leverkuhn, seconded by Livingston, to close the public hearing. Chairman Williams stated the record should show no one was present to testify at the publis hearing. Motion by Livingston, seconded by Leverkuhn, to recommend that the fence across the front af.the building be removed and that an 8 foot fence in the front yard only be allowed on the southwest corner of the building and the gate be relocated against the building. Commissioner Livingston stated this proposal -would look better, provide needed security, and would not set a president. Commissioner Baker stated he had mixed emotions. He felt the situation was unique due to the large front yard setback and the berm, but also was concerned about the 8 foot fence in the front yard. Overall this fence would not be detrimental to the city located so far back from the road. Commissioner Baker was in favor of the fence request. Mr. Drayna commented that the gate, attached to the front of the build-' ing, would look worse because of how the framework for the gate would hang on the building. Commissioner Livingston asked the applicant why the berm had been put in. Mr. Drayna stated the former property owner was required to put it in on the request of .the City. Commissioner Leverkuhn had a point of order and asked why the request was for a special use permit and not a variance when Section 6-400 which addresses fences in industrial districts states that fences erected in the front yard or a street side yard shall not exceed three and one-half feet in height. Commissioner Leverkuhn stated we should be considering a variance and not a special use permit. Staff responded that that would be the normal case in most communities except that Section 4-540 (c} (6) states that fences for special purposes and fences differing in construction, height, length, or location from the requirements of this section may be permitted in any district by the issuance of a special use permit. Commissioner Leverkuhn stated that Section 4-540 (c) (4) required fences in industrial districts to be subject to Section 5-400. Commissioner Baker felt the request should be changed to a variance but that might require a new public hearing. Staff responded that because public notification requirements are the same for a variance as they are for a special use permit it would not be necessary to have a new public hearing on a variance. Vote On Motion 1 Aye (Livingston)- 5 Nayes, Motion Failed