Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Chair Narum agreed. She stated that she has two to three fences across her backyard <br />that all look different, but she and her neighbors agreed with one another, paid their <br />share of the installation, and mutually maintain the fence. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank moved to deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Zoning <br />Case P11-0664, subject to the conditions of approval <br />listed in Exhibit A of the staff report. <br />Commissioner Pentin seconded the motion. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br /> <br />AYES: Commissioners Blank, Olson, Narum, Pearce, and Pentin <br />NOES: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />RECUSED: None <br />ABSENT: None <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC-2011-50 approving Case P11-0664 was entered and approved as <br />motioned. <br /> <br />d. P11-0731, Carl Pretzel (Appellant); Robert Baker (Applicant) <br />Review application to construct an approximately 74-foot long fence between <br />3647 and 3633 Glacier Court North, varying in height from 72 inches to <br />83 inches. Zoning for the property is R-1-6,500 (One- Family Residential) <br />District. <br /> <br />Jenny Soo presented the staff report and described the scope, layout, and key elements <br />of the application. <br /> <br />Chair Narum disclosed that she visited Mr. <br />were any conditions of approval. <br /> <br />Ms. Soo replied that <br />letter, Exhibit A of the staff report. <br /> <br />Chair Narum noted that there is a difference in elevation between Mr. <br />Mr. <br /> <br />Ms. Soo replied that the fence is seven feet, ten inches tall on Mr. <br />that the fence is lower on Mr. Bakeside. <br /> <br />fence had already been built. He inquired who filed a complaint on the overheight <br />fence. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 14, 2011 Page 16 of 22 <br /> <br />