08/03/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the fence will be 4 foot high all the way back. Mr. ScharFele indicated that that was correct. " Mr. Maloney indicated that the back of the fence would be 6 feet high all along the back. Mr. Scharfele answered that that was correct. Mr. Maloney continued to review that from the rear of the garage the fence will start out at 4 feet high and then gradually be stepped up so that at the corner it will be 6 feet high. Mr. Scharfele showed the board members and his neighbors pictures of what the fence would look like. Mr. Kremzar questioned were the fence would start to step up in height. Mr. Scharfele indicated that the fence would start to step up at the end of his home. Mr. Maloney commented that he was concerned for the neighbors driveway as the fence may block the view of the neighbors backing out. He asked the applicant to angle the corner of the rear fence for the safety of his neighbors as well as pedestrians. Mr. Scharfele indicated that he did not mind putting an angle on the corner of the fence. Mrs. Fisher, questioned were the fence would start compared to their -home. Mr. Scharfele reviewed that the fence would start at the rear north side of the home. Mr. Fisher commented, then it will not effect our home. Mr. Kremzar questioned if the fence would be on the rear property line. Mr. Scharfele commented that the rear neighbor had flowers and bushes on the property line so the fence will be moved in so they are not disturbed. Mr. Maloney questioned the Building Commissioner as to whether or not the fence would need to be required to be angled. Mr. Conway, commented that as the fence will be 12 feet from the sidewalk there would not be any legal issues. Mr. Scharfele indicated that he would have no objections to angling the rear corner of the fence. Mr.1Vlaloney felt that angling the fence 4 to 5 feet would improve the line of view as well as any safety issues that may come up. Mr. Scharfele commented that he would be happy to angle the fence. Mr. Conway questioned if the board members were asking the applicant to set back 4 feet on each corner and then developing a 45-degree angle between them. Mr. Maloney indicated that he felt that would be a good measurement. Mr. Conway commented that he wanted to inform the applicant that he could take the fence to the property line. Therefore, if it is a condition for him not to do so then the board will need to make it a condition of the variance. Mr. Scharfele remarked that he would not take the fence to the property line, he just wants to do what is shown on the site plara. Mr. Conway indicated that if there was a concern with granting the applicant some kind of variance and making a condition. The applicant could come back tomorrow and put the fence down the property line. W. Kremzar motioned to approve Robert Scharfele of 6123 Decker Rd. his request for variance (1123.12). Which consists of a fence as amended and agreed upon and that the following variances be granted: 1. A 13 foot variance for side 'yard setback on corner lot, (code requires 25ft, applicant shows 12ft). 2. A 1 foot 6-inch variance for height of 75 feet of fence in side yard setback, (code permits Zft 6inch, applicant shows 4ft). 3. A variance for 88 feet of fence in side yard setback which is under 50% open, (code requires 50% applicant shows under 50%). 4. A 3-foot 6-inch variance for height of 13 feet of fence in side yard setback (rear), (code permits Zft 6inch, applicant shows 6ft). 5. On the southeast corner a 4-foot angle be cut between the south and East Side fence. Furtliermore, the last 15 feet of fence will be graduated from 4 foot to 6 feet on the East Side of the home. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1135.02 F-2 & F-1). The motion was seconded by, J. Konold and unanimously approved. Variaances Granted. 4