2006_1009_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

that there has been no problem on the site for the past 30 years. Milce Radovich, 1820 Dale Court, explained his concern regarding landscaping needed to protect the house form Dale Street traffic est�eeia,ily near the comer. Site lines are one of his concerns. Thomas Paschlce explained the traffic visibility triangle, 30 feet either side of a comer property line at the intersection. Any plans for landscaping and fencing would be reviewed and regulated under a building permit. Chair T�ayn�r noted that the property ow�ae�- of Parcel B would need a site plan and building pei�rr�it for the ��ouse and fencing. A condition can be included for any landscaping ad fence review during the building permit application and review. NIr. Doherty explained that non- eonfom�ing 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. na�'�explained that because of the wide Dale Street Boulevard, a 400 foot line of sight to the south is possible. Thomas Paschlce explained how the city would enforce visibility along and around the comer. Julie Efta, 646 Pnttevie��v Court, said this is a busy intersection, even with school buses. Could right of way be redesigned to allow for easier bus movements? Thomas Paschlce explained there are no plans (city or county) to widen the intersection. Marlc Heffen, Alta Vista Drive, expressed concern for traffic safety. Fences and wildlife are a concern. There are up to 10 deer in this area. A fence will detour the deer. IN October and November the big deer movement is between �;30�m. and S:30pnn.. The deer may jump into t11e right of way. A fence will create the deer ru�. 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 Paschlce explained that nothing prohibits the current owner from installing a fence today. He explained that the land division with conditions will iiat be detrimental to the public. Member Boerigter said the minor subdivision and confined building area is troubling. The Commission should malce 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 pe��ait 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 co�ccnl that the next owner will not be aware of the Commission concems. Member White supports the efforts because the city has policies and regulations in place to malce this compatible. The owner (current) could do many fence and landscape improvements. He encouraged the Commission to loolc forward to a unique design, without further restrictions. RCAi'I'�655(0$2205)-Page 9 of 12