08/08/2001 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 5 required front or side yard setback. Sec. 3 Subd. 4.D.3.3.) Staff is processing this variance at no charge to the Ramsays because of the oversight. Staff advised that the second variance involves a proposed fence around the back yard and pool. The Ramsay's lot fronts on Ruffed Grouse Court. Their rear lot line is the side lot line of their neighbors' house, which fronts on Ruffed Grouse Road. The zoning ordinance addresses fences in such a situation, which is common with corner lots: Should the rear lot line of a lot be common with the side lot line of an abutting lot, that portion of the rear lot line equate to the required front yard of the abutting lot shall not be fenced to a height of more than four (4) feet. (Section 3 Subd. 4.T.b.) Staff noted that the ordinance is verbally clumsy: substitute "equal" for "equate ". In addition, our interpretation has always been that the intent is: "that portion of the rear yard equal to the required front yard of the abutting lot shall not be fenced to height more than four feet." The intent is to prevent a front yard from being closed in by a neighbor's six -foot fence along that neighbor's back and ,.• a yards. It is instructive that a later passage states: Fences in residential districts may be located in _ y. d to =•'ght of four (4) feet, except that a fence up to six (6) feet in height ► ; b cted om the front facade of the principal building to the side and/or rear lot line. (Sec s: Subs .T.4.) Staff suggested that clearly the int foot fences. The fence along th building front and going back fro taller fence would fence i front yards visually open, free from six - an go up to six feet beginning at the xcept when the lot abuts another where the is front yard. Staff advised that the ordin arding pools requires only a four -foot fence if a fence is the safeguard to prevent c "P` en from gaining uncontrolled access. In fact, because the ladder to the pool can beretracted, the ordinance does not actually require a fence. The Ramsays are concerned about children climbing a four -foot fence and gaining unsupervised access to the pool. Staff was unable to contact the neighbors on the abutting lot due to their phone number being unlisted. Staff explained that the Ramsays have said they are amenable to constructing the six -foot fence as far back from the road as possible while still enclosing the pool. Staff presented the findings that must be addressed in considering all requests for variance and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.