Laserfiche WebLink
Senior Planner Anderson was unsure why fencing was not included in the density transitioning <br />options, as it can be used for commercial properties. <br />Board Member Fetterley stated that she would agree with fencing as an option but noted that if an <br />existing homeowner does not like the view being created, they would most likely install their own <br />fence. <br />Board Member Hiatt stated that he would be concerned with the upkeep of a fence over time. He <br />noted that there are some composite fences that he has noticed more recently that would provide <br />immediate screening. <br />Chairperson Moore recognized that while no one on the Board would choose fencing as the first. <br />option, perhaps that could be used in combination with another element or could be the best choice <br />in some scenarios. <br />Senior Planner Anderson agreed that a fence alone should not be allowed for density transitioning <br />but could be part of an overall plan with trees and vegetation. He noted that as this moves forward, <br />he would work with this Board on the vegetation portions while also working with other groups, <br />such as the Planning Commission, on other potential ideas. <br />Board Member Hiatt stated that perhaps it would be helpful to have input from developers as they <br />would have experience on what worked well in other developments and communities they have <br />worked in. <br />6. BOARD / STAFF INPUT <br />No comments. <br />7. ADJOURNMENT <br />Motion by Board Member Little and seconded by Board Member Bernard to adjourn the meeting. <br />The meeting adjourned at 7:41 p.m. <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />Chris An e <br />Senior Planner <br />Planning Administrative Assistant <br />Environmental Policy Board / October 17, 2022 <br />Page 5 of 6 <br />