Laserfiche WebLink
than 10 feet there was no need for permits or development review by the planning <br /> staff. <br /> After multiple discussions with the Staff, the current plans are for a fence that meets <br /> the current PMC, i.e. under ten feet, no attached lighting. The fence, as laid out <br /> exceeds the ancillary structure side yard requirements - even though it is not an <br /> ancillary structure. <br /> Regarding any conditions on the R-1-40,000: <br /> Attached is a photo of Dennis Street in question. With the exception of a house at the <br /> end of the block that was added over 10 years ago, the street has had a nearly 7 foot <br /> fence (including curb) for the last 25 years. So it is not apparent how a fence inside of <br /> that fence by 10 feet, that reduces the number of tennis balls that reach the Dennis <br /> Ave or the neighboring yards changes the nature of the neighborhood. <br /> In most cases, for a City Staff, Planning Commission, or Council, to add special <br /> conditions onto a parcel that don't apply to any other parcels in the city, there needs to <br /> be some special circumstances regarding the subject property. It is not presented that <br /> the staff has found anything special, other than a complaint from a single property <br /> owner regarding lights (which are not planned), and a fence that is conforming to the <br /> existing PMC. The fence is not required to be built per PMC, it is only intended to be <br /> used to protect errant tennis balls from flying onto that property and the street. <br /> One irony of the situation is that the complainant owns the contiguous property on <br /> -Martin, next door to 2107 Martin. That property has been unoccupied for a few <br /> years, and is used to store both a camper and a basketball hoop over 10 feet high. <br /> That property also has two ancillary structures closer than the 5 foot setback to <br /> property owners of my homeowners association. The Agenda Report Figure 4 on page <br /> 5 of 14, cuts off those eyesores clearly visible from the street. <br /> Attached is a photo the. Martin side yard owned by the complainant. <br /> To summarize, I believe the application for changing the Development Standards to <br /> R-1 -40,000 should be approved with no conditions. If there arise any code violations <br /> in the future, then that becomes the concern of the Code Enforcement Department. <br /> I plan to attend the Hearing to answer questions or for clarifications. <br /> Respectfully, <br /> Jay Galvin <br />