CC_Minutes_2015_0824 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,August 24,2015 Page 33 Ms. McCormick referenced and read a portion of the neighborhood petition origi- nally submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the ap- plicant's request, seeking 100% opaque fencing for the entire length of the north- ern parcel boundary as part of any conditions applied for IU approval; and for the purpose of providing a barrier and visual screening for immediate neighbors relat- ed to light and noise, and at no time requested only for the purpose of screening just the parking lot. At the request of and referencing the currently displayed landscaping diagram, Ms. McCormick clarified that the neighborhood proposal was seeking replace- ment of the existing fence versus previous consideration and discussion of a sleeve to convert the existing fence posts for board on board fencing. While not having heard whether or not that option remains viable, Ms. McCormick stated that in her own independent consultation with a fencing contractor, if the Vogel's contractor didn't think that was possible, she had been advised that there where augers to accomplish that task. Councilmember McGehee sought confirmation as to neighborhood agreement if the fence was moved 10' to 15' closer to the Vogel property with their mainte- nance of trees from boundary to boundary. Without further consultation with neighbors, Ms. McCormick advised that she was unable to respond. However, Ms. McCormick noted that the Vogel's had made it clear that they do not want trespassing on their property, causing her to think that proposed solution may be problematic for the Vogel's lawn care of that property. In response to Ms. McCormick's statement, Councilmember McGehee opined that would be the Vogel's problem based on assurances from their representative tonight that they would maintain the area. If the Vogel's shifted the fence to the south and installed plantings on the north side of the fence, Councilmember Willmus asked Ms. McCormick if that would provide a potential solution, if it was determined that vegetation could be installed on the utility easement versus a fence. Ms. McCormick questioned what would happen under that proposal with the space between, depending on what was determined sufficient for the utility com- pany if they only needed 10' or 15' easement; and whether or not the existing fence would remain or be removed. Ms. McCormick opined that she'd expect the neighbors would want some barrier on the property line, but reiterated that the ex- isting fence had not been maintained for years. If the Vogel's agreed to do maintenance and clean it up from their side, Ms. McCormick stated that she