Laserfiche WebLink
alternative: to install either of two types of Schuell brand <br />fences, "San Lido" or "San Fernando". Mr. Holycross further <br />stated that 1. the proposal does not make a permanent change to <br />the neighborhood; 2. historic fencing will not be removed; 3. <br />District standards do not specifically prohibit such a fence <br />from being installed, and; 4. at least one similar fence had <br />been previously approved in the neighborhood. <br />Mr. Holycross then recommended that the HPC again encourage the <br />owner to install an appropriate picket fence or install <br />appropriate fencing along the western edge of the area. If they <br />remain opposed, however, the above four reasons would justify <br />approving the proposal. <br />Mr. Oxian asked the purpose of this proposal, ie: why the HPC <br />was being asked to approve the fence before the Area Plan <br />Commission had approved the replatting. <br />Mr. Holycross replied that he felt it was a courtesy to the <br />owner to expedite the decision; the HPC could make a decision <br />based on the merits of the proposal and allow the owners to go <br />through with the project, if approved by the HPC and APC, before <br />winter. This was the reason for the suggestion that the HPC <br />could "provisionally" approve the plan, if appropriate, and hold <br />a COA until the proper authorization was had from the APC. <br />Mr. Bide inquired whether staff felt that either alternative <br />fence was appropriate; Mr. Holycross relied in the negative. <br />Mrs. Choitz asked for clarification as to the position of the <br />fence; Mr. Holycross replied that it was only at the rear as <br />pictured in the diagram. <br />Mr. Oxian said that the owners were responsible for proving <br />hardship if they wished to do so, and would need to provide <br />proof, precedent of which could be found in many other such <br />cases around the country. <br />Discussion ensued as to when and where in the District similar <br />fencing (San Fernando) had been approved. The matter of whether <br />the fence was visible was also discussed; it was agreed that the <br />fence was visible from both streets and from the alley. <br />Mrs. Choitz inquired as to the use of the land within the fenced <br />area; Mr. Holycross reiterated that there purpose was to stop <br />automobile traffic across the lots. <br />Mr. Oxian stated that he could not approve a chain-link fence in <br />the District; no others had been approved; a precedent would be <br />unacceptable. <br />Mr. Welsheimer asked for clarification as to the type of fence <br />previously approved; Mr. Holycross replied that "San Fernando" <br />had been approved previously. <br />Fa <br />