Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />December 20, 1984 <br />Page 3 <br />L. <br />Public Hearings <br />8:00 P.M.- <br />8:23 P.M. <br />Thermo Kin VN-241 <br />Staff explained how the fence came to be located in it's <br />present position and she recommended denisaal of the <br />resolution. <br />request per the findings of fact <br />John Jorissen of Thermo King questioned the lack of unique <br />circumstances especially with the singlleamilyshomesof High- <br />adjacent to the property. Existing properties <br />out. now and other <br />#96 do not conform <br />does onotesticksetbacks <br />Thermo o King's fence (with 20 HP <br />ways there are to protect the well and well pump motor). There are no simple ways to protect pump except by <br />fencing it. There is no intention to couldlbe <br />the front yard for parking and storage <br />is Their concrn is <br />curbed off to prevent parking. <br />look?ngtandswasty <br />of the neighbors. The fence <br />there when the property was purchased. <br />Chairman Williams asked if the fence is in the same place now <br />as it was prior to construction. <br />Mr. Jorrissen responded it is except across the front of the <br />building. <br />Chairman Williams asked if the fence should be permitted because <br />it was reestablished in the same location as when the applicant <br />purchased the property. <br />Commissioner Bakeapproved pplanstforftheedelocation velopmentaofnthecsite. <br />sistent with the <br />Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston to close the public. <br />hearing. <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion carried. <br />Commissioner Baker stated he had a concern for granting the variance because a 32 foot fence would serve the safety purpose <br />of keeping children out, that e ofcthetareaito be setrandKthat <br />is an opportunity for the standards <br />the pump is not unique and can be secured without a fence.