pf_03221 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Extract of Draft Minutes from Plan nine Commission Meetine of Julv 12.2000: 6f. Plannine: File 3221: Request by Lake Ridge Nursing Home to construct an eight-foot parking lot screen fence on property located at 2727 Victoria Street. Chair Klausing opened the hearing and requested Community Development Director Dennis Welsch to provide verbal summary of the project report dated July 12,2000. Lake Ridge Nursing Home requested a variance to increase the height of a fence along their westerly and northerly property lines, from 6.5 feet to 8 feet. The staff findings were presented. A summary of the approved Lake Ridge Nursing Home proposal was presented. Staff recommended approval of the variance. Member Olson asked if the request came from neighborhood meetings (yes). Member Wilki asked what fencing material would be used (board on board cedar fencing). Robert Newdower, adjoining neighbor on Woodhill Drive, asked for location of the fence and if it would impact more properties than those adjacent to the parking lot (no). There being no further questions/comments, Chair Klausing closed the hearing. Motion: Chair Klausing moved, seconded by Member Olson, to recommend approval of the Lake Ridge Nursing Home request for a 1 Y2 foot fence height variance for property located at 2727 Victoria Street based on the findings located in Section 3.1 to 3.8 of the project report in accordance with the following: Whereas, the Planning Commission finds that there is a physical hardship with the requested variance to increase the height of a fence along its west and north property line from 6 Y:z to 8 feet, and that the physical hardship was not created by the applicant; and, Whereas, the Planning Commission finds that there is a unique physical feature to the property that would justify the variance, specifically the proximately of the existing homes; and, Whereas, there is not a reasonable alternative design that would not require a variance; and, Whereas, granting the variance would not significantly impact the health, safety or general welfare of the community; and, Whereas, the Planning Commission has determined that the granting of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance;