08-08-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1286 May 27, 1988 Page 2 of 2 6. Staff would note that this application is unique in that the majority of previous variance applications for fence height have involved lake frontage properties and have dealt with the issues of ence height in relation to the road crown or in relation to the existing grade, both on major thoroughfares and minor local streets. The Rovegno application at 2010 Shoreline Drive resulted in ordinance language that prohibits any fence from being within 75' of the lakeshore. The Burton application at 405 Oxford Road, resulted in ordinance amendments that established that height of fence and its associated fill may not exceed 6' above the height of the crown of the road. However, the City has never established criteria for situations such as the current application, where properties next to a 55 mile per hour County road are seeking relief from road noise and safety for children. DISCUSSION Staff would suggest that Planning Commission review the requested variance by answering a number of questions: 1. Does the applicant have any reasonable methods available to him to accomplish the equivalent purpose? 2. Are there other forms of screening that would be suitable and still be economically feasible? 3. Will the fence create a hazard to the safety, health, and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood? 4. Will the fence be visually obtrusive in the neighborhood, or can the fence itself be screened so as to become visually unobtrusive? 5. Will approval of the variances to allow this fence lead to many other similar requests, or is this situation so unique as to be different than :host other situations? 7. Based on the visual impact from the roadway, is there any reasonable basis for Orono Code to distinguish between lake frontage lots abutting a major thoroughfare versus nonlakeshore lots abutting a major thoroughfare, when dealing with 6' high fences? 8. Is there a justification to allow the 6' high fence only in the side street yard and rear yard where they abut a major thoroughfare? 9. Does the speed limit and average traffic speed to some degree dictate whether a thoroughfare is "major" or "minor", in relation to the issue of decreasing road noise impact? 10. Should there be elements of subdivision design that are required along major thoroughfares to eliminate tre need for requests such as this in the future? 11. Would it be feasible to approve the requested screening fence for a temporary term so that once the vegetative screen has matured, the fence could be removed? STAFF RECOMMENDATION V If the Planning Commission finds that the hardships of road noise and child safety concerns outweigh any dotrimental characteristics of the fence proposai, then a recommendation for-,r,proval, supported by your findings, would be appropriate.