2008-03-04 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City ofCenlenlll. Planning and ZonIng CnmmI'l'lOll February 12, 2008 city }\dminimrator Larson stated that the 30 day requirement in Section 154.023(A) has been revised as agreed to by the Plannittg and Zoning Commission to state that application materials must be submitted at 1east five business days before the plAnning and Zoning Commission meeting. In addition, Section 154.023(C) has been revised to reflect that three sets of site plans will be required versus sixteen. He stated that the City may also require that plans be submitted in an acceptable electronic format. city }\dminimmor Larson stated that Section 154.11 O(A)(l) has been revised as agreed to by the plAnning and Zoning Commission to state that all fences sha1l be located a minimum of two feet from any property line. He stated that Section 154.IIO(A)(3) has been revised to state that all decorative fences sha1l have at least 400" of the surface area of the fence open. Commissioner Love questioned whether a definition of "street property lInen should be included in this section. city j\dmini!Ot1'ator Larson replied that this is the property line as it abuts the street as opposed to the interior property line. It was the consensus of the Planning and Zoning ec.mmis..wn to include a definition of "street property linen in the code revision. CouncDmember Broussard questioned whether the word "woodn should be deleted in Section 154.110(A)(3) in descn'bing vertical post, horizontal rail. and picket type fences. She stated that there are new products on the market made of recycled vinyl that would be acceptable. She requested that spiked metal tops not be allowed when referring to wrought iron fencing. It was the consensus of the planning and Zoning Commi....mn to delete the word "woodn as it relates to vertical post, horizontal rail. and picket type fences. City Administrator Larson questioned whether the height requirement is accurately reflected in the code. It was the consensus of the plAnning and Zoning Commission that the height requirement as contained in the code is acceptable. Councilmember Broussard questioned whether the snow-stop funcing should include the same setback requirements as decorative fencing. city Administrator Larson replied that the snow-stop funcing does not need a setback requirement and is considered a temporary fence. city Administrator Larson questioned whether the code should contain a provision that states where snow-stop fencing is permitted and whether it should be restricted to the R-I District or on a lot with more than "xn number of acres. He stated that it may be appropriate to restrict the use of a snow-stop fence by a showing of need as a special use. Page 3 of5