08/07/2008 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A- exceeded. Although board members did not want the current pool to remain in its location due to its proximity to the addition they did not want to prohibit the owner from ever having a pool in his backyard so no conditions pertaining to a pool were added to the motion. Mr. Menser moved seconded lby Ms. Rudolph, to grant Michael Sholtis of 4463 Westview Drive an 11 foot variance for a residence too close to rear property line, code requires 50 ft, applicant shows 39 ft which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section 1135.08 (a) which was unanimously appi-oved 5-0. Kathleen Salis; 27511 Marquette Blvd (Ward 1) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a fence The following variances are requested: 1. An 18 inch variance for a fence within a neighbor's 50 foot setbaclc on a corner lot, code peimits 30", applicant shows 48". 2. A 25% variance for a fence less than 50% open within a neighbor's 50' setback, code requires 50% open, applicant shows 25% open. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section 1135.02 (F1). Mrs. Salis the owner and Mr. McMillen each came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. McMillen said his client would like a four foot high piclcet fence with four inch boards and four inch spaces for the safety of her children as they have had trouble with vehicles crossing over their property. The fence will be scalloped and 50% open with the existing landscaping inside the fence. Mrs. Diver questioned if there were rear and sideyard easements. Mr. McMillen said there were both and believed that as long as they were away from the sewer line there should be no issue. Mrs. Sergi asked if the easements would be inside or out outside the fence. Mr. McMillen said the easements would be inside the fence and questioned who would need to be contacted to have the sewer lines marked to ensure they stay away from the pipes. Mr. Conway said he would have his inspector work with the city engineer as it would be up to the engineer where the fence would need to be placed or he could require a letter aclcnowledging the owner is liable if while work is being performed the city would not be liable for any damages to the fence due to its placement. Mrs. Sergi was concerned the placement of the fence along the sidewallc would impede the rear neighbor's visibility when baclcing out of their drive. Mr. McMillen said the piclcet fence was sloped so each section of fence at the highest point is 4 foot and decreases to 3.6 feet before rising again to a 4 foot height. Mrs. Salis said the four foot height is needed to ensure the safety of her family. She did not believe the fence height would impede her neighbors view as there was a solid wall of evergreens in the same location prior to being removed because of diseases. Mr. Menser did not believe visibility would be impeded with a piclcet fence scalloped and 50% open. Mrs. Diver and Mrs. Sergi said they would be more comfortable with the fence moved inwaxd from the sidewallc. Mr. Conway said his assistant observed that the rear home's driveway visibility could be impeded by the fence placement. The board appreciated the fence being 50% open thereby eliminating the second variance but were concerned the placement could be a safety issue. Mr. Conway said that related to easements the code does not prohibit fences within easements but there are civil codes related to the enforcements of easeinents being obstructed. Members discussed requiring the fence be moved inward but were concerned that their decision could affect the owners existing landscaping which they did not want to do. Ms. Rudolph felt the board should table the matter to allow the owner to worlc with the building department on a reasonable location and allow board meinbers the chance to view the site to determine a reasonable setback from the sidewallc. 2