2000 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

---- =� i==— _ __ _- k _ = � % Brunes Variancc April 5, 2000 Page 3 of 5 . . _ . ._ L - . . " _ - The proposed fence would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. With regard to the first criteria concerning extraordinary circumstances, it is clear that the property is not a factor in this request, in that, the property is not oddly configured, nor is it topographically situated in such a way as to necessitate the tall fence. The second criteria states that the strict interpretation of the Code deprives the applicant use of the property. In this situation, the neighbors are depriving the applicants of their right to peaceably enjoy the use of their yard, not the City Code. While staff believes that-- in this specific situation--the approval of a variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code or to other property, tall fences in a front yard do not lend well to a promotion of community spirit or neighborhood cohesion. Furthermore, responding to the issue of privacy in this manner may create unintended consequences beyond the two properties and set precedence for every other property owner experiencing similar "next-door-neighbor" conflicts. Recommendation: In order for the Planning Commission to approve a variance, all of the criteria need to be addressed to the satisfaction of the Comniission. Based upon the above assessment, it does not appear that all of the criteria are satisfied, which would necessitate a denial of the variance request. While staffempathizes with the applicants and understands the situation in w}uch they are in, it is recommended that the Conunission direct staffto prepare a resolution of denial to be acted upon at its next meeting on Apri) 19, 2000. � v U-��'n-�-IJ James Ericson, Planner I:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDfiV�DEVCASI:S\VR00-002U3runes Rcport - April 5, 2000.doc