09-17-2018 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

LA18-000071 September 17, 2018 Page 4 of 5 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has stated this to be true. The use of the property is gained by the single family home on the property. Fences of various heights are permissible is many areas of the yard. The Commission should determine if this standard justifies additional fence height and fence structures in the lake yard. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The applicant has stated this to be true and noted that granting this variances will improve the safety, comfort and local character as a uniform fence height will better deter intruders, keep the property more secure, and create a more pleasing aesthetic to the area. The code offers options for fencing that assist with safety and security. The applicant is proposing fencing that exceeds this minimal need at the expense of adjacent properties. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The applicant has stated, the granting of the variance is necessary to alleviate potential safety issues that would otherwise exist if the height of a section of the fencing is shortened. The landowners have young children, and the perceived ease of exit presented by a shortened fence increases the risk of injury or other harmful situations. Likewise, the shortened fence also poses very similar issues to the landowner's dog, capable of jumping the lower fence height. Variances are granted to the property, not the property owner, and the age of children is not justification for a fence height. The Commission and Council in 2016 considered a fence height Variance on Heritage Lane, this fence variance was not supported and eventually widthdrawn by the applicant. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Staff finds there is little practical difficulties to support the request. Staff does not find any unique conditions to the property compared to other lakeshore properties. Further, permitting fence structures in the Lake Yard introduces a dangerous precedent. The only fence variance approved in the lake yard is based on that applicant's proximity to a marina business. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. The applicant submitted a plan with the neighbor's signature in support of the variance request. Issues for Consideration The Planning Commission should discussion the intent of the fence setbacks to determine if the proposed project is in harmony with the intent of the Ordinance. Are there circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner?