07/05/2022 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Andrew Mack mentioned that the city development team is currently entertaining the discussion of future amendments to the Master Thoroughfare Plan and that could potentially alter this intersection and resolve some of the citizen complaints. There was discussion amongst the board and city staff about the safety of the road and fence height, setback and openness requirements. The board also discussed the possibility of setting a condition to create a sight visibility triangle. Ms. Alsobrook re -opened the public hearing. Ms. Stripland stated that she would be ok with the suggested plan of creating a sight visibility triangle if it was granted. Public hearing was declared re -closed. Motion was made by Larry Walker, seconded by Jerry Haning to approve the 2'6" variance to Section 4.11.003(b)(1)(C) of the Fence Ordinance to allow 6' tall front yard fence versus the required maximum 42" tall front yard fence. Motion was made based on the board recommended condition and finding that the fence is to be placed at a diagonal to allow a sight visibility triangle to be present in the side, front yard of the corner lot. Motion failed 3-2 with RuthAnn Alsobrook and David Hamilton as the dissenting votes. Motion was made by David Hamilton, seconded by William Sanders to deny the variance to Section 4.11.003(b)(1)(D) of the Fence Ordinance to allow a solid front yard fence versus the required minimum of fifty percent open area for passage of air and light based on the following staff recommended findings. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. The request for variance is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of Fence Ordinance No. 2021-044, as amended, and does not continue to protect the immediate adjacent roadway from potential dangerous negative safety impacts that will result from obstructed views by drivers on 34th Street NE and Clement Road. 2. The denial of the request to permit the fence in this location and with no openness causing sight obstructions for drivers will not prevent the reasonable use of the property for the residence because a new fence may be installed that conforms to the ordinance requirements and still provide reasonable use of the property. 3. There are no special or unique condition(s) of restricted area, shape, topography, or physical features that exist on the subject parcel of land, which are not applicable to other parcels of land in the same zoning district, and which cause unusual and practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the use of a compliant fence setbacks and height allowed by the ordinance with the provisions sought here to be varied.