Laserfiche WebLink
Commission recommended they enhance the fence by painting the fence or replacing <br />damaged areas. They will fix or address the fence as needed. Mr. Crook questioned if the <br />plans were showing the width of the drive along the north side to be 14-feet as code requires <br />15-feet and suggested that it be double checked. Ms. Caserta suggested that she would <br />make sure the width is to code. They added a fence to the outside seating area, which will be <br />white vinyl fencing. 1VIr. Crook noted that the elevation keys did not correlate with what <br />was actually shown on the plans. The color rendering shows brick 3 is Merlot but the plan <br />shows brick 3 to be Sandcastle. They are typos but should be corrected. The front of the <br />building shows the light brick was brought all the way down but on the sides, a medium band <br />is at grade level. He would prefer the sandcastle brick be continuous to ground level. <br />Residents comments: <br />Mr. Sturgeon believed Planning Commission requested that the fence be replaced and <br />placed atop a mound. The fence has an angle, which from our side of the lot standing at <br />grade level they can see right over the 6-foot fence and he is not 6-foot tall. He suggested <br />placing a 3-foot mound with an 8-foot fence along the entire south side of the property line. <br />Mr. Zergott voiced that he would rather have trees placed on 2-foot mounds that will grow <br />up to 12-feet tall and buffer in a more pleasing manor. Mr. Sturgeon understands that the <br />city needs entrance to the ditch but the angle of the southwest corner does not show any <br />buffering for their home. Every car maneuvering around on the site will be shining their <br />headlights right into their kitchen. The last parking spaces are going to shine right into their <br />living room. The entire south side needs to be heavily landscaped to buffer the lights from <br />the cars. He would also like to see the parking spaces angled like the parking to the north. <br />Mr. Crook commented that the light angle needs to be addressed with landscaping not <br />angled parking on the south side because the traffic flow would have to become a one-way <br />loop throughout the site, which would not work. Mr. Sturgeon indicated that they do not <br />want any light shining into their house. Mr. Zergott inquired who owned the fence and who <br />would maintain the fence. Ms. Caserta suggested that she assumed that the fence would <br />become theirs once the property is signed over to them. Mr. Sturgeon remarked that the <br />fence was placed along the old ditch and it was constructed in a very poor manor. Mr. <br />Crook suggested the ditch be cleaned out and instead of just painting the fence think about <br />replacing the fence. Mr. Zergott felt that the area would be better served with landscaping to <br />buffer the neighbors not a fence. Mrs. Sturgeon indicated that when CVS was built, they <br />placed pine trees along the property line and all of them died. She further voiced that <br />Planning Commission requested a mound with a board on board fence. Ms. Caserta felt that <br />the Planning Commission wanted them to modify the fence as needed and they will. Mrs. <br />Sturgeon disagreed with the applicant and voiced that she would like the fence replaced and <br />higher to block the lights from her home. She inquired if the area to the east would have a <br />fence. 1VIs. Caserta indicated that to the east the area is an apartment complex and this site <br />abuts the parking lot so a fence is not needed. Mrs. Sturgeon felt a fence should be placed <br />along the east side as well because although it faces a parking lot the family's in the <br />apartment complex use the green-space as a picnic area and play area for their children. Mr. <br />Sturgeon strongly felt that there should be a mound with a fence as well as landscaping and <br />the fence should run the entire boarder of the east and south side of the property lines. 1VIr. <br />Bowman thought there was an easement along the ditch, and the City has to have access to <br />the ditch area. Therefore, he is not sure that anything could be placed in the southeast corner. <br />1VIr. Zergott felt that a removable fence system, which has been available for years, would <br />work in the southeast corner. However, a mound in the southeast corner would not be <br />feasible. Mrs. Bowman voiced a concern that the new owners needed to be careful about the <br />amount of water they runoff into the ditch as there are no storm sewers along Clague Road. <br />2