Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br /> Date: September 8, 2005 <br /> Item No.: <br /> Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: <br /> Zoning <br /> Name: Janice Gundlach <br /> Title: City Planner <br /> Item Description: Bever Landscaping on behalf of Adam & Kathy LaFavre, 1535 Bohn's Point <br /> Road — Appeal of a Staff Interpretation <br /> Zoning District: LR— 1B, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre minimum) <br /> Lot Area: 5.52 acres (240,380 s.£) <br /> Lot Width: �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. Staff's 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 interpretation 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 fairly new <br /> (adopted 5/04), where many of the entrance monuments and gates existing in the City were reviewed <br /> and approved based on interpretations of the fence regulations. Staff finds that because the <br />