2012_0827_Packet as amended - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

climb over the fence they could do so. Mr. Christenson opined that a six foot (6’) fence was 102 actually harder to drive through than an eight foot (8’) fence; and unauthorized access was 103 also easier when the fencing was opaque. Mr. Christenson opined that, with the video 104 cameras and lighting, it would serve to discourage any access to the lot, but would probably 105 not totally eliminate it. Mr. Christenson further opined that most break ins were by those 106 whose vehicles had been seized; and if they wanted access, they could simply cut the fence. 107 At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Lloyd advised that during interdepartmental staff 108 meetings, the Police Department had expressed no concerns with this application. 109 Mr. Christenson noted that those vehicles stored outside, approximately ninety percent (90%) 110 of those seized were the less expensive vehicles, usually valued at $1,000 or below; and more 111 expensive vehicles would continue to be stored indoors. Mr. Christenson advised that many of 112 those less expensive vehicles were already smashed up and provided no rationale for 113 breaking in. 114 At the request of Member Lester regarding if in the future it was determined that an eight foot 115 (8’) fence would be better and required of a renewed Interim Use application, Mr. Lloyd 116 advised that the Code could be applied at the point of any new approval request. However, 117 Mr. Lloyd questioned if it would be appropriate if there had been no major issues with the 118 Interim Use between now and then. If there was a tipping point or issue raised or if continued 119 problems were observed necessitating that change, not just due to strict adherence to City 120 Code, Mr. Lloyd noted that those historical events or conclusions to recommend the higher 121 fence would be documented. 122 Public Comments 123 Vice Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing for File 12-001 at approximately 7:15 p.m. 124 with no one appearing for or against. 125 MOTION 126 Member Olsen moved, seconded by Member Strohmeier to recommend to the City 127 Council APPROVAL OF THE INTERIM USE, based on the findings of Sections 4-6 and 128 the recommendations of Section 7 of the staff report dated August 1, 2012; amended as 129 follows: 130 Condition b: revised to allow a six foot (6’) versus an eight foot (8’) fence. 131 Ayes: 6 132 Nays: 0 133 Motion carried. 134 Staff advised that the anticipated City Council action date was August 27. 2012. 135 136