Laserfiche WebLink
■ ‘ ^ <br />% ' <br />Zoainqi Fil* I12t« tf«y 27, 19l«Page 2 of 2 <br />§. Staff would Bota that thia application is unique in that tfcs <br />Majority of prawioua warianca applications for Cenca height have <br />involved lake frontage pro|»rties and have dealt with the issues of <br />fence height in relation to the road crown or in relation to the <br />existing grade, both on swijor thoroughfares and ainor local streets. <br />The Rovegno application at 2010 Shoreline Drive resulted in ordinance <br />language that prohibits any fence fron being within 75* of the <br />lakeshore. The Burton application at 405 Oxford Read, resulted in <br />ordinance anendnenta that established that height of fence and its <br />associated fill nay not exceed 6* above the height of the crown of <br />the road. Bowever, the City has never established criteria for <br />•^^®*kions such as the current application, where properties next to a <br />Mile per hour County road are seeking relief froa road noise and <br />safety for children. <br />DIBCOBBIOa <br />Staff would suggest that Planning Coanisslon review the requested <br />variance b^’ answering a nusd>er of questions! <br />1. Does the applicant have any reasonable Methods available to hie to <br />acconplish the equivalent purpose? <br />2. Are there other foras of screening that would be suitable and <br />still be econoailcally feasible? <br />3. Will the fence create a hasard to the safety, health, and welfare <br />of the surrounding neighborhood? <br />4. Will the fence be visually obtrusive in the neighborhood, or can <br />the fence itself be screened so as to becone visually anobtrusive? <br />5. Will approval of the variances to allow this fence lead to laany <br />other siailar requests, or is this situation so unique as to be <br />different than Most other situations? <br />7. Based on the visual iMpact froM the roadway, is there any <br />reasonable basis for Orono Code to distinguish between lake frontage <br />lots abutting a major thoroughfare versus nonlakeshore lots abutting a <br />major thoroughfare, when dealing with 6' high fences? <br />0. Is there a justification to allow the 6' high fence only in the <br />side street yard and rear yard where they abut a major thoroughfare? <br />9. Does the speed limit and average traffic speed to some degree <br />dictate whether a thoroughfare is "major" or "minor", in relation to <br />the issue of decreasing road noise impact? <br />10. Should there be elements of subdivision design that are required <br />along siajor thoroughfares to eliminate the need for requests such as <br />this in the future? <br />11. Would it be feasible to approve ♦■ne requested screening fence for <br />a temporary term so that once the vegetative screen has matured, the <br />fer.ee could be removed? <br />STAFF BbCOmiBHDATXOB <br />If the Planning Commission finds that the hardships of road noise and <br />child satevy concerns outweigh m/ detrimental characteristics of the fence <br />proposal, then a recommendation for approval, supported by your findings, <br />would be appropriate. <br />O ^ / / ^ / ' i * * ' . ^ C. / ^ } <br />¥ <br />■mmm <br />I <br />5?‘ ^ <br />J