Laserfiche WebLink
F <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />m Date: September 8,200S <br />Item No. <br />l ‘II <br />Department Approval:Administrator Approval: <br />Name: Janice Gundlach <br />Title: City Planner <br />Agenda Section: <br />Zoning <br />item Description: Sever Landscaping on behalf of Adam & Kathy LaFavre. 1S3S Bohn’s Point <br />Road - Appeal of a Stafflnterpretation <br />Zoning District: <br />Lot Area: <br />Lot Width: <br />LR - IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre minimum) <br />5.52 acres (240,380 s.f.) <br />--495 feet <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Application <br />B - Applicant ’s Narrative <br />C - Elevation View of Proposed Gates <br />D-City Code Section 78*1405: Nonencroachments <br />E - City Code Section 78-1 & 78-1467 Pertaining to Residential Signage <br />GATE HEIGHT <br />The applicant submitted for a building permit for a number of landscaping improvements and also <br />construction of entrance monuments with gates. Staffs review of the gates concluded that the gate <br />height is limited to 42” per the fence ordinance for a rear/street yard of a lakeshore lot not on a major <br />thoroughfare. The 42” limitation is a result of staff defaulting to the fence height limitations as there <br />is not anything in the ordinance regarding gate height. The gates proposed as shown on the permit <br />approach 7.25 ’ in height at the highest point with the majority of the gate at a height of 5.3*. <br />Rather than allowing the applicant to apply for a variance staff felt it would be more appropriate for <br />the applicant to appeal the staff inteipretation regarding the 42” limitation, as neither the entrance <br />monument or fence sections of the ordinance address gate height. Staff also felt this was an <br />opportunity for the Council to direct staff if something other than the 42” should be permitted. <br />After reviewing many of the existing entrance gates in the community it became clear to staff that <br />the majority existing under similar parameters meet the 42” limitation, however there are a few <br />anomalies. It should also be noted that the entrance monument section of the code is fairlv new <br />0 <br />(adopted 5/04). where many of the entrance monuments and gates existing in the City were leviewed <br />and approved 1 tsed on interpretations of the fence regulations. Staff finds that because the <br />i