Laserfiche WebLink
rm Ti <br />•» • <br />■f <br />isli Zoning Memo #1731 <br />JF May 12, 1992 <br />If Page 2 <br />•* •*■i^Ki: <br />would appear a 6' high fence would be allowed in the <br />side and rear yard, since the code did not distinguish <br />between side and rear yards adjacent to a street. <br />Applicant did not provide a survey of the property at <br />that time nor a plan locating the proposed fencing. <br />Allowed » 3 1/2' per Planning Commission's interpretation of <br />ordinance 6/91. Based on staff memos and minutes of <br />meeting, it is not clear what Planning Commission based <br />their opinion. <br />I?. <br />List of Exhibits - <br />A - Application <br />A 1 - Applicant's Addendum <br />B - Plat Map <br />- Property Owner's List <br />- Pillar/Hedge Fencing Elevation <br />- Landscape Plan <br />- Council Minutes 7/22/91 <br />“ Section 10.03, Subd. 15 (C), (D), (E) and (F) <br />- Yard Designations for Property as One Building Site <br />- Yard Designations of Properties as Three Independent Units <br />C <br />D <br />E <br />F <br />G <br />H <br />I <br />Description of Request <br />fri: <br />During the review of Application #1604, the applicant was given <br />the opportunity to file an add on variance application. The applicant <br />seeks a variance to the allowed height for a pillar or monument to be <br />spaced every 20' between sections of natural planting. Based on the <br />Planning Commission's preliminary interpretation at their June, 1991, <br />meeting, yard areas adjacent to streets were allowed only a 3 1/2' <br />high fence. Staff's preliminary discussions with applicant were based <br />on the comprehensive land holdings of the owner. Rood did not advise <br />of the eventual separation of the properties into three separate <br />residential units. The variance application must relate to the newly <br />defined residential lot lines. Review Exhibit I. <br />Description of Hardship <br />■■-1 TJ Please review applicant ’s addendum Exhibit A-1. Staff would add <br />that the unimproved right-of-way (Hillside Place) shown at a 25' width <br />would never meet the required width for development of a public or <br />private road and that based on current zoning, the roadway will only <br />serve a maximum of two residential units. <br />mm <br />mm <br />1 V <br />'•‘4^ <br />.. r .