07-17-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2032 July 5" 1995 Pace 2 Description of Request Applicant seeks approval of a height and setback variance tor a 6 + privacy fence located at the street lot line and in the rear yard of a lakeshore lot that docs not abut a major thorouchfare. Rest Point Road is not a County road nor an MSA funded road. As fence exceeds the allowed 3'/2* height, the Code will require that it meet the structural setback of 30’. Review Exhibit D. Applicant has designated the areas requiring variance approval, an 80’ section along the street lot line and 30’ along the south side lot line. Posts have already been installed. The Inspector asked the applicant to cease all work until the necessary variance approvals were received. The existing sections along the street and rear yard along alley arc at the allowed 42" height. Applicant'^has reinstalled'" fencing along the side lot line where a previous fence had existed for some 18 years. Applicant chose not to repair sections but to replace with better quality fencing. This type of fencing is similar to the fencing installed at the residence across the street on Rest Point Road. Note reference to Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (D) - tencii^ along side lot line on a lakeshore lot cannot exceed 72" or 6’ height. As average height of this fence is 6’ + , applicant must also seek variance for portion of fence installed along side lot li^. If fence is to exceed 6’ in height, the Code asks that the fence be reinstaUed 10’ from the side lot line. Statement of Hardship Refer to Exhibit A. They are as follows: 1. Original privacy fencing had existed on property for over 18 years. Applicant’s desire for privacy due to location of the residence to roadway at south and public alley to the east. 3.Sloping topography adjacent to Rest Point Road places both road and house at the same elevation. 4. Need to minimize car lights, etc. from nearby driveways and roadway Issues for Consideration 1. Are applicant’s hardships valid or acceptable? 2. Does the unique layout of this neighborhood require special screening needs year-round? 3. Does the fence visually impact any adjacent property' 4. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. MUM