City Council Minutes 1993 05 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

are interested in eminent domain. Then, to make the appropriate recommendations to Council. Seconded by Howard. All in favor. RESOLUTION NO. 16, SERIES 1993 -AMENDMENTTO FINAL PUDDEVELOPMENT PLAN - CLUB HOMES AT COAL CREEK Paul Wood, Planning Director, stated that this is an amendment to an existing PUD that was adopted in 1990. The original PUD authorized four (4) different 6 ft. high fence types. With the exception of one fence type, which was a wood privacy fence, all of them were either solid stucco or a combination of wrought iron and stucco. Primarily, the amendment before Council concerns the stucco perimeter fence. In October of '91 a fence permit was issued for approximately 300 ft. of stucco fence for Phase I, rear property lines. The applicant is requesting to revise the fence detail from four (4) types to three (3) types, with the perimeter fence being a Type A fence (6 ft. stucco). The applicant is requesting a revision of the design and construction method to which that fence is to be built in anticipation of potential drainage and flooding problems on the actual homes. The proposed amendment incorporates a fence that calls for steel posts with a rigid substructure to which a stucco application will be applied. The entire fence is to be elevated approximately 4 in. above the grade to allow the drainage to seep underneath the fence. The action taken by the Planning Commission in April supported only two (2) requests of the scope of the PUD amendment. They only supported the elimination of the pavers above entryways and the shortening of the wall sign. On April 13, 1993, Planning Commission found that there was no compelling evidence to support the alternate fence design. The Planning Commission, by a vote of 6 - 0, approved only two (2) portions of the applicant's request. The Commission approved the elimination of the street pavers and shortening of the 36" sign walls at the project entry. Sisk: Are we in a position to have this hearing tonight, without having the Planning Commission's findings? Griffiths: Yes, I think you are, as long as you understand the recommendation from the Planning Commission, as represented by the staff. Mayer: Request No. 4, the installation of backyard gates, as necessary, to permit access of utility easements located in rear yards, was not approved by the Planning Commission. Do you know why they objected to that?