Laserfiche WebLink
that they can have normal maintenance done, but if they are ever removed they would be prohibited <br />from reconstructed unless they were built in compliance with current ordinance of that time. <br />RuthAnn then asks if the legal non -conforming fences maybe existed before the ordinance was put <br />in place to which Stephanie Harris says she believed it was adopted in 2008. Andrew then states <br />that part of the issue with the corner lots is that they should have been platted bigger to prevent <br />things like this because people want to utilize more of their yards and in doing so their fences are <br />closer to the street. <br />Public hearing was declared open. <br />Chance Floyd, property owner, states that when obtaining the permit he was directed to draw where <br />he was wanting to place the fence. After doing so Paige Unger and Roger Colson had reviewed <br />the drawing along with a copy of the plat and directed him measure 10' off of the back of the curb <br />and 6' away from the alleyway for the construction of the fence. Mr. Floyd then states that when <br />constructing the fence he chose to build the fence further in than the 6' away from the alley for <br />visibility and because it is used frequently as a two-way alley when it really is only wide enough <br />to be used as a one-way alley. Chance measured 10.5' away from the alley and about 12 to 11.5' <br />away from the curb and followed the curve on 42nd street to help with the visibility. Mr. Floyd <br />continues to explain the necessity of the fence since he knew he would want a place for his kids to <br />play, privacy, he knew that they were going to be putting in a pool and a safe backyard since 42nd <br />street is a busy street. Lastly, Chance mentions that at the time of inspection the inspector had told <br />him he may have to put in a diagonal setback 15'. <br />Larry Walker and William Sanders clarify with the applicant that the permit was pulled and <br />approved before the fence was built. <br />Larry Walker asks Andrew Mack if applicant has gone through the proper procedures by pulling <br />a permit and it being approved why he was required to request a variance. Andrew Mack states <br />that even though there may have been confusion of the setbacks when the permit was issued that <br />the ordinance still applies and that is why the variance was suggested to correct it. <br />RuthAnn Alsobrook, asks if the fence remains as is if it will be unsafe or how the visibility will be <br />affected. Andrew states that the middle area of the fence does not create an obstruction though the <br />structural mass of the fence is more than usual than desired along the street, but the City does <br />recommend that the diagonal be installed at the alleyway to help with the visibility. <br />Cory Jones of 345 SE 42nd St, spoke in favor of the variance. He stated that over the years they <br />have had neighbors come and go at this address and heard their complaints of there not being a <br />fence in the back yard to utilize it and have privacy. When the Floyds moved in and installed their <br />fence, he was excited for them to be able to use their backyard and have the safety and privacy <br />they deserved. He continues to say that he often drives his truck down the alley and has the <br />visibility he needs considering that the road is curved and does seem to have heavy traffic <br />sometimes. Mr. Jones does not believe that the fence itself is the issue but rather the flow of traffic <br />