Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING CASE NO. 446-96 <br /> JULY 10, 1996 <br /> PAGE TWO OF THREE • <br /> The applicant is requesting the two foot variance for reasons <br /> of safety. Namely, the safety of his child, any other children <br /> who may be visiting, pets and automobile traffic along Red <br /> Oak Drive. The applicant attributes these safety concerns <br /> to a large mound on the western edge of his property along <br /> Red Oak Drive, which is approximately four feet in height at <br /> the center. With a fence of only four feet in height, as the <br /> Code permits, the applicant feels the situation could create <br /> a hazard for children and pets. The six foot fence would, <br /> according to the applicant, provide adequate protection to <br /> prevent children from falling over the fence, pets from <br /> jumping the fence, or other potential mishaps. The applicant <br /> has also reviewed the variance criteria and addressed each <br /> issue in his letter dated June 03, 1996. <br /> As requested by the Planning Commission at the June 19, <br /> 1996 Agenda meeting, the applicant has notified Staff that <br /> the fence will be 78' back from Sherwood Road. <br /> The proposed fence will be French Gothic treated wood. <br /> The site plan shows the fence following the perimeter of the <br /> property line, but not directly on it. <br /> Since the Public Hearing Notices have gone out, Staff has <br /> received several inquiries from residents within 350' from <br /> this property. All but one call have been in support of the <br /> fence. The only call opposed to the fence was from Mrs. <br /> Vogt on Red Oak Drive who will be unable to attend the <br /> meeting, as she has a broken hip. She is concerned that a <br /> fence only a few feet back from the property will create a <br /> visual hazard and will create a problem with snow removal <br /> blocking the street. Staff did explain to Mrs. Vogt that the <br /> fence would be located behind the house and that the Code <br /> allows a 4' fence is the same area. Mrs. Vogt still wanted <br /> her concerns entered into the record. <br /> Recommendation/ <br /> Analysis: Based on discussion at the June 19, 1996 Planning <br /> Commission Agenda Meeting, Resolution No. 460-96 <br /> • <br />