Laserfiche WebLink
Recommendation: <br />Staff recommends that alternative two or three be considered by <br />the commission. <br />Alternative two: <br />If the commission finds that: <br />1, there is a need for additional visual screening of <br />the adjacent garage to the west of the King <br />property; <br />2. and that an eight foot high fence rather than a <br />six foot high fence or landscape screening is <br />necessary to provide adequate screening; <br />then there is reason to approve a variance on this side <br />of the property. If these two findings cannot be made, <br />then no variance in fence height should be granted. <br />The Kings do not express a need for additional visual <br />screening on the east side of their property. <br />Therefore, there is no reason to vary from the zoning <br />code and grant a variance for an eight foot high fence <br />on this portion of the property. Making the fence <br />height consistent around the King property would <br />• suggest that all newly constructed fences on adjoining <br />properties should be granted variances for eight feet <br />in height to be consistent with the King's fence. <br />Alternative three: <br />If the commission finds that: <br />1. there is not a need for additional visual <br />screening or <br />2, that a landscape screen of eight feet or more will <br />meet the property owners' need <br />then the variance should be denied. <br />ATTACHMENTS: <br />A - Letter from Mrs. and Mrs. King, 1427 West Idaho <br />B --Site plan of proposed fence <br />C - Diagram.of variance granted for 1530 Iowa <br />D - Diagram of variance granted for 1700 St. Mary's <br />