Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, March 2, 2016 <br /> <br />Page 26 <br />Ms. Erickson responded that the neighbors had originally asked for an 8’ board on board <br />1274 <br />fence on the northern edge of the Vogel property as close as possible to the original <br />1275 <br />fence location in place for over thirty years. Ms. Erickson stated that the neighbors would <br />1276 <br />prefer that the Vogels install the fence as close to the property line as possible to there <br />1277 <br />was no worry about maintaining either side. <br />1278 <br />Member Murphy <br /> asked the reason for their request of an 8’ versus 6’5” fence height. <br />1279 <br />Ms. Erickson responded that it matched the fence already there to the east of the <br />1280 <br />property between residents and businesses. <br />1281 <br />Member Murphy <br /> asked if Ms. Erickson had any concern with lights from the Vogel <br />1282 <br />parking areas. <br />1283 <br />Ms. Erickson stated that the neighbors had never asked about lights, only that there be <br />1284 <br />some demarcation between residential and commercial properties. <br />1285 <br />Member Murphy <br /> asked if Ms. Erickson had concerns if the fence was not on the <br />1286 <br />property line, and if further back, if there were concerns with its location at 1’, 1 yard or 1” <br />1287 <br />form the property line. <br />1288 <br />Ms. Erickson responded that, per the Vogel survey, the fence was 3” from the property <br />1289 <br />line and the neighbors didn’t object. However, Ms. Erickson noted that if the fence was <br />1290 <br />located 1’ or 10’ from the property line, it would require two fences installed in the same <br />1291 <br />area; and while willing to do so in order to protect their properties, she questioned what <br />1292 <br />effect that would have overall. <br />1293 <br />Lisa McCormick, Wheeler Street <br />1294 <br />As a long-term resident of the area, and not immediately abutting the Vogel property, Ms. <br />1295 <br />McCormick stated that she did live in close proximity and also happened to be an <br />1296 <br />attorney working in the areas of real estate and land use. However, Ms. McCormick <br />1297 <br />clarified that she was not speaking or functioning here tonight in that capacity, and only <br />1298 <br />mentioned it based on her particular skill set as a preface to her comments. <br />1299 <br />Ms. McCormick displayed Attachment B for reference from tonight’s agenda materials <br />1300 <br />related to this item; and addressed questions since last speaking about the fence. <br />1301 <br />Ms. McCormick referenced both Xcel Energy and CenturyLink representatives indicating <br />1302 <br />there was no issue in replacing the fence in its prior location, which was in reality <br />1303 <br />somewhat south of the actual property line. As for footings, Ms. McCormick stated that <br />1304 <br />she had documentation she would leave with the Commission tonight from Midwest <br />1305 <br />Fence showing their specifications for an 8’ fence requiring a 12” footing. <br />1306 <br />Ms. McCormick referenced and expression for the comments made by a previous <br />1307 <br />speaker differentiating “quantitative” and “qualitative” considerations. In line with that, Ms. <br />1308 <br />McCormick stated that at no time had there been any indication of the location of the <br />1309 <br />actual cable meandering; and it was typical for requirements to indicate hand digging <br />1310 <br />near cable. Ms. McCormick advised that both Midwest Fence and CenturyLink had <br />1311 <br />described the process for “potholing” in clay-based soils; and recognized that due to the <br />1312 <br />nature of that soil, the cable could have shifted over time and the only way to know was <br />1313 <br />through hand digging. <br />1314 <br />Ms. McCormick referenced and read the requirements from CenturyLink and description <br />1315 <br />of installation footings, which could be adjusted as needs determined. <br />1316 <br />Ms. McCormick noted that three trees had already been removed, and 2-3 others could <br />1317 <br />probably need to be removed in the near future due to similar situations. Whether or not a <br />1318 <br />footing goes through a tree root, if the cable comes into play, Ms. McCormick reviewed <br />1319 <br />her understanding that sheathing could be put in to move the cable out of the way, and <br />1320 <br />therefore a tree root didn’t preclude a fence footing being installed. <br />1321 <br />Ms. McCormick noted that while neighbors could install their own fences, indications <br />1322 <br />show the cable 2’ into their properties requiring all of their fence posts to be hand dug, <br />1323 <br /> <br />