July 1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING of the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Special Monthly Meeting County Commissioner's 7:30 p.m. Conference Room Monday June 17, 1996 7th Floor County -City Building I. Call to Order John Oxian, president of the commission, brought the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. II. Roll Call Commission members present. were: John Borkowski, Richard Bullene, Martha Choitz, Adrian Fine, Catherine Hostetler, John Oxian, & J. Edward Talley. Commission staff present was: David Duvall, director and Aladean DeRose, counsel. Also attending the meeting were: Jed-Eide, Precious Jeltz and Lesley Levitsky. III. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness 1) 1996-0531, 715 Riverside Dr. Fence alterations Mr. Duvall presented the Staff Report and distributed photographs. Mr. Duvall further indicated that, he had' spoken to Mr. Vogt,. the applicant, earlier in the day and that Mr. Vogt had indicated that he would not be at the'meeting. Mr. Duvall provided information not available at the writing of his report that the fence at the north property line which is -the location of the sharp fence edges is actually the property of the adjacent property owner. That property is presently vacant; the previous occupant having recently passed away. Mr. Vogt did seek and receive permission to mount his lattice on this fence. The fence at the south side is on the Vogt's property. Mr. Talley asked if this meant that there'should be two.applications. Mr. Duvall indicated that he felt the present .application to be appropriate as the lattice was on his side of_ the fence. Mr. Duvall indicated that Mr. Vogt did not have authority to remove the northern fence which has the sharp edges altogether. Mrs. Choitz stated that her understanding was that the question of safety was not up to the commission to determine, but only appropriateness to the historical context. Mrs. DeRose clarified that the commission does not'assure the safety of anything which is approved but that the commission may approve as appropriate a measure which is undertaken for purposes of safety. Fr. Bullene- stated that he had driven by the location and noted that the other chain link fences extending forward of the setback did not interrupt the continuity of the -yards as the lattice does. Mr. Borkowski asked whether the fence with the sharp edges had been installed upside down with the turned under wire at the bottom. Mr. Duvall stated that this was probable but that he had not examined the fencing at the soil level and that the fence was quite rusted and probably quite old. Mr. Fine suggested that Mr. Vogt might be able to bend the sharp edges of the fencing under. Mr. Duvall noted that the lattice had been applied to the chain-link all along the fence line and that the issue was not limited to the front yard setback. After some discussion about how to address the safety issue in the motion Mr. Oxian moved that the commission deny the application with. instruction to Staff to suggest the bending under of sharp wires to the applicant. Fr. Bullene stated that the applicant had made the fence more substantial by adding more obviously visible material questioning whether this would be considered appropriate in locations where fencing is not otherwise prohibited (i.e. the front setback). Mrs. Choitz stated that an appropriate lattice fence would be more substantially constructed. Mr. Oxian