PC 121201 - Laserfiche WebLink

lots have steep slopes, and, therefore, there is a precedent for granting a variance. He further .r- noted that the only difference is that the variances have been made for side yard fences, and they are requesting a setback for the front yard fence. He advised that if they are granted the variance to move the fence forward it would provide some privacy. He also advised that there is no fence opposite the proposed location for the fence, and, therefore it would not create a "wall" as expressed as a concern in the staff report. Mr. Groshans stated that the relocation of the fence would improve the usefulness ofthe lot by capturing some additional level ground behind the fence and create a level area where their children can play safely. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Arkin, Mr. Groshans clarified that the landscaping plan that was submitted was conceptual and if a variance is approved they are not proposing a sport court that protrudes into the front yard setback. Mr. Groshans advised that they have no intention to erect a permanent structure that is over 30 inches high, but they may get a temporary basketball standard that can be moved. r C.J. Rose, 662 Abbie Street, advised that she lives next door to the Groshans. She reported that she moved into her home one year following the developer's completion of the neighborhood and to her knowledge the fence has never been moved and is located in the original location where the builder built it. She commented on the fence setbacks for the lots in the neighborhood, noting that the lots to the west of her lot have very large setbacks, while those to the east have fences which are only two or three feet from the sidewalk. She advised that there are no sidewalks across the street along Lots 65, 70, 71, 74, 78, and 79, and the fences are two feet from the curb. She noted that the previous owners of the Groshans' home have not landscaped the yard because they have not known what to do with it, and because of that it has always had a vacant lot look to it. She stated that if the Groshans are allowed to relocate the fence it will provide a safe area for the Groshans' children to play, and it will allow them to install landscaping and give ownership to that corner of the lot. Mr. Groshans described their proposal for landscaping. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED In response to an inquiry from Chairperson Maas, Mr. Plucker advised that as stated by the applicant, the lot is very wide, but staff does not feel that having a large lot in excess of the zoning requirements is justification to support a variance. He further advised that if the lot was narrower and there was less yard area than what the zoning required, that would potentially be a justification for granting a variance. Chairperson Maas noted that the fences with smaller setbacks are side yard fences, not front yard fences. Mr. Plucker advised that there have been a number of variances for side yard fences in this development. Commissioner Kameny advised that he visited the site and he determined that this is a front yard fence, not a side yard fence. He noted that the fences in this neighborhood which are located close to the sidewalk and street are side yard fences. He stated that while he sympathizes with the Groshans, he couldn't support the applicant's proposal as it will set a precedent for front yard fences. r- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 12,2001 Page 3