10-28-1985 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #986 October 24, 1985 Page 4 Staff has had numerous discussions with the applicant during the last five months in an attempt to reconcile the City's concerns and the applicant's needs. At first staff suggested the temporary use of a cabana during the summer months to provide privacy. The applicant did not accept this alternative. In a second attempt, staff placed laths (stakes) parallel to the shoreline in a location that would not provide sight problems if a 3 1/2 foot high fence was installed. The applicant did not accept the second recommendation. The applicant has stated he will relocate the 5 foot high fence along the staked line and trim back any portion to 3 feet that extended into the 30 foot setback area from the intersection. The applicant was advised that a height variance must be granted by the City as staff had no authority to approve the request. Staff Recommendation Staff indicated to the applicant back in July that they could recommend a zoning amendment to allow a fence up to 6 feet so long as it remained 3 1/2 feet below the crown of the road, provided there were no public safety concerns. If Mr. Rovegno's fence so conformed we could recommend a variance. The Planninq Commission was aske] to consider the privacy aspect of the application as staff and applicant had resolved the trespass problems with the post and guard rail installati-n along 'he access. Planning Commisison asked the applicant to consider trimmina back the length of the fence and/or reshape the confirguration of the fencing to provide the privacy but with -in a more defined and limited area. The applicant declined. The Planning Commission asked if privacy could be achieved by relocating the fence along the staked line and lessening the height of the 5 foot. fence. The applicant declined. The Planning Commission voted to deny the variance application of George Rovegno, based on the follow.iny findinqs: 1. The five foot high fence has been placed at the intersection of a public lake access and a County road. The access is used during the winter months from December lst through March Ist and will create major hazards for the public who use both the access and public road. 2. The applicant was very much a part of the amendment process of the fence ordinance that. was to prevent such abuse of the Lakeshore views of adjacent lakeshore property owners. 3. The applicant is a member of. the Planning Commission and was fully aware of the intent of the fence ordinance concerning privacy f.encps within the Lakeshore setback area.