10-28-1985 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #986 October 24, 1985 Page 3 Staff would also recommend that since the applicant's property is divided by the intersecting roadway (plat of County Road 15), the lakeshore parcel can no longer claim any connection or credit for principal structure on non -riparian portion of property. As in the Shaver/Tearse application, the applicant must be granted a variance to maintain an accessory structure on a lot that does not contain a principal structure. Review of Applicant's Position The applicant has not submitted his position in writing but has noted for the public record at both Planning Commission meetings the many abuses sustained by him and members of his fami ly in the public use of the 25 feet wide access. He also advises of problems with passenger vehicles as they travel along Shoreline Dri ve and the need for a privacy fence along the roadway. Rovegno asks the City to consider these unique f i.ndings as to why a privacy fence (over 3 1/2 feet) is required: 1. Location of access. 2. Location of intersection. 3. Location of commercial property and non -conforming commercial use of property adjacent to his resident used property. 4. The County road right-of-way existing only as an easement with a 40 foot width (Review Exhibit G) and not as a 66 foot dedicated right- of-way. 5. The county Highway Department and County Poard have approved use of fence at the present location. The staff has agreed to install posts with guard rails along the south side of the access for the purpose of detering trespassers. The applicant. has asked the City to recommend a new location for the fence and still maintain the privacy and use of his private property. This is not an easy task given the variation in elevation between the access approach and the public road, existing structures along roadway, need to maintain required 30 feet side distance at access approach to public road.