11-14-1988 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File i1347 October 12, 1988 Page 2 of 3 2. The gateway will be located approximately 150' up the private driveway from Kelly Avenue. This private driveway serves just the two rouses at 2710 and 2715 Pence Lane. 3. The 16' span between the overhangs on the two structures meets the minimum lal width required for a fire truck with side mirrors to pass, hence the gateway is acceptable for the two residences served. However, if a future subdivision created a third lct, the City would require the construction of a 24' wide private road and the gateway likewise would have to be widened. 4. Although none of the plans indicate it, it is anticipated that the existing wooden planter and sign posts on either side of the driveway will be removed. 5. The plan submitted does not clarify whether any light fixture is proposed to be integrated into the monuments. Discussion - These entryway gates are apparently becoming quite popular, both from the standpoint of security that they provide as well as being a decorative fixture. Staff would note for the record that if these gate posts were located more than 30' from the front lot line, they would be considered as an accessory structure and there would be no need for a variance. Since the applicants wish to construct the gateway 5' from the side lot line and about 14' from the defined rear lot line, the variance is necessary. Staff would further note that based on the survey, the westerly monument is partially within the 10' drainage and utility easement along the property border. If this is considered as a fence structure, the City would not normally have a problem with a fence on a drainage and utility easement. However, if this is considered an accessory structure, normally no structures are allowed in drainage and utility easements, and there is potential for interference with existing or future utilities to the property. Perhaps one consideration if the structure is allowed as proposed, would be requiring a hold harmless agreement in favor of the City and other utility companies which would have occasion to use the easement, so that they would not be responsible for any damage that they do to the structure within the 10' easement. The applicant has suggested that the hardship for this application is that the maximum allowable height by ordinance of 3�' is not sufficient to provide the security required by the property owner. It would seem that the 3h' fence height ordinance was never intended to provide the type of security that this property owner desires, however, it may •very well be legitin,ste to erect an imposing barrier to turn away traffic. On the other hand, one could make the arg•iment that to keep all unwanted or uninvited persons and traffic off the property, one would need an 8-10' high fence or wall around the entire property.