2006_1009_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mike Radovich, 1820 Dale Court, explained his concern regarding landscaping needed to protect the house form Dale Street traffic especially near the corner. Site lines are one of his concerns. Thomas Paschke explained the traffic visibility triangle, 30 feet either side of a corner property line at the intersection. Any plans for landscaping and fencing would be reviewed and regulated under a building permit. ChairTraynar noted that the property owner of Parcel B would need a site plan and building permit for the house and fencing. A condition can be included for any landscaping ad fence review during the building permit application and review. Mr. Doherty explained that non-conforming landscaping could be installed after the building is complete. Mr. Radovich said the intersection is the only place the neighborhood can enter Dale Street to head north. Mr. Iliff explained that because of the wide Dale Street Boulevard, a 400 foot line of sight to the south is possible. Thomas Paschke explained how the city would enforce visibility along and around the corner. Julie ��ta, 646 Pin�view Court, said this is a busy intersection, even with school buses. Could right of way be redesigned to allow for easier bus movements. Thomas Paschke explained there are no plans (city or county) to widen the intersection. Mark Heffen, Alta Vista Drive, expressed concern for traffic safety. Fences and wildlife are a concern. There are up to 1 D deer in this area. A fence will detour the deer. I N October and November the big deer movement is between 4:30prn and 5:30p�n. The deer may jump into the right of way. A fence will create the deer run problems. The area is a heavy fog area in fall. The neighborhood is at least 50% over the age of 50, requiring more lines of sight for visibility. Dale Street is very fast. Thomas Paschke explained that nothing prohibits the current owner from installing a fence today. He explained that the land division with conditions, will not be detrimental to the public. Member Boerigter said the minor subdivision and confined building area is troubling. The Commission should make a finding that the lot is buildable and irregular, but this is not a reason to grant a variance request. There should be no other variances on this site. Member Bakeman agreed. She recommended the need for a permit for any fence. Member poherty agreed with both. He expressed concern with the size of the buildable area; he is not sure what can be built on this lot. Member Boerigter expressed concern that the next owner will not be aware of the Commission concerns. Member White supports the efforts because the city has policies and regulations in place to make this compatible. The owner (current) could do many fence and landscape improvements. He encouraged the Commission to look forward to a unique design, without further restrictions. Member Boerigtersaid the future variances may be a concem. The hardshipwas created by the property owner. A specific finding or record should be made for variance requests on this site in the future. Chair iraynor explained that additional conditions should be added; but he was concerned with traffic and enforceabilityof conditions to be used in the future. There were no further comments. ChairTraynorclosed the hearing. Motion: Member Ba€ceman moved, seconded by Member Boerigter, to recommend approval of an 892 s.f. lot size variance to Section 1004.016 (Residential Dimensional Requirements) for