City Council Minutes 1993 05 18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

side and caught into that vision clearance. As far as the fence is concerned, during the process of the house being built, I checked on it, and that's when I saw the project notes. It said that it had to be returned to the rear corner of the house. Sisk: So, by the addition of the third car garage, that is what necessitated the moving of this 30 ft. back to 18 ft.? Why wasn't this done before the house was built, as opposed to doing it after the fact? I'd like to ask Storck this. Are they here tonight? Schielke: No. Hedding met and talked with William Ebert, owner of Lot 1, who staked out his property where he would like to have his fence. Hedding drove by it and stated that there is no tunnel effect created by this and there doesn't seem to be any safety or hazard created by this. Davidson: Tom (Phare), do you view this as any type of safety issue of blocking vision, etc.? Tom Phare, Public Works Director, stated that, if they're outside the vision clearance area, there should be no problems with traffic site distance. Davidson called for any other Council questions. NONE Mayer moved that Council approve Resolution No. 19, Series 1993, amendment to a final PUD Development Plan, Cherrywood II, and approve the change in the PUD with regard to fencing, as noted in the request from the Planning Commission. Seconded by Hedding. Lathrop: I would just like to clarify that there isn't any question that, whether it's noted on the PUD or, perhaps, I might have to offer a friendly amendment to make sure it's clarified that the perimeter fence be continued in the same style, manner, and color, as approved on the PUD. 15