Laserfiche WebLink
Representatives: Amanda Spuhler, owner <br />Proposal consists of a fence in the front yard on a corner lot. Property is zones B-One Family <br />Residence. <br />The following variances are requested: <br />1. A 15 ft. variance for side yard setback on a corner lot; code requires 20 ft., applicant shows 5 <br />ft., Section 1135.02(d)(3). <br />2. An 18 in. variance for the height of a fence located on a corner lot in the required setback; <br />code permits 30 in., applicant shows 48 in., Section 1135.02(d)(3). <br />Mr. Aspery stated that the applicant is proposing to install a 48-inch aluminum ornamental fence <br />along the southern property line. The applicant is proposing to install the fence five feet off of <br />the property line, thereby requiring a variance of 15 feet. Code allows for a fence that is at least <br />50% open and not exceeding 30 inches in height on a corner lot in the side and rear yards at the <br />street line of the abutting lot on the side street. The fence composition is acceptable as shown, <br />but the height requires a variance of 18 inches. <br />Ms. Spuhler stated that she was concerned about the safety of her children and pets and the fence <br />location would not impair driver vision. Mr. O'Malley called to the board's attention that City <br />Council addressed a code section that was frequently reviewed by the board. Mr. Mackey asked <br />why the additional fence height was requested. Ms. Spuhler believed that four-foot ornamental <br />fence is a standard fence height. Mr. Rahm clarified with the applicant that the picture submitted <br />is the fence type she would want to install with a flat top and flat bottom. <br />Bob Bittel, 29307 Hastings, did not think that a 30-inch fence would do much to keep children <br />and pets safe. He believed that the existing trees in the applicant's yard would block the drivers' <br />vision more than the fence would and he did not object to the construction of the fence. <br />Mr. Papotto asked about the storm and sanitary sewer lines that run through the property, Mr. <br />Russell stated that the owner would be responsible for moving the fence if needed. Mr. Allain <br />asked if the setback is measured from the street or from the sidewalk, Mr. Russell stated that it is <br />measured from the property line which is inside the sidewalk. Mr. Allain pointed out that the <br />fence would be about 18 feet from the street. Mr. Allain stated that an email was received from <br />John Cairns, 29275 Hastings Drive, who does not oppose the proposal. Mr. Mackey did not <br />believe the fence would be a safety hazard after driving past the property. Mr. Rahm agreed and <br />supported the variance since it is written in a way that a privacy fence would not be allowed. <br />Mr. Papotto moved, seconded by Mr. Mackey, to approve the following variances for 18- <br />11139; Cassandra & Amanda Spuhler; 6368 Hastings Drive: <br />1. A 15 ft. variance for side yard setback on a corner lot; code requires 20 ft., applicant <br />shows 5 ft., Section 1135.02(d)(3). <br />2. An 18 in. varaance for the height of a fence located on a corner lot in the required <br />setback; code permits 30 in., applicant shows 48 in., Section 1135.02(d)(3). <br />Motion passed 4-0. <br />18-11228; Ralph Potts; 3420 Dawn Circle <br />Representatives: Ralph Potts, owner