11 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

• I •requesting approval of a new fence on their property only; M . Pretzel's existing fence would remain. ANALYSIS A, ShenccilihLFsfnves. The Municipal Code allows fencing to a height of 6 feet without any special approvals or • permits. Section 1 8.84.0900 of the Code allows fences greater than 6 feet but not over 8 _ feet in height with approval of an administrative design review application. Overheight -__- fences,when agreed to by all affected neighbors. routinely are approved through the. Administrative Design Review process. Generally, It is City policy to encourage that fencing which is intended to separate properties be located along the common property -_ line shared between lots. Usually,neighbors would shore the costs of maintenance and repair or replacement of such fencing since it is considered to be of common benefit, The City generally discourages "double-fencing" i.e., fencing on either side of a property line • , a becaust. such an arrangement creates a maintenance/access problem for each property owner and too often the space between the fences becomes overgrown with weeds and can provide a habitat for undesirable rodents. }}, Nciehbnr's Concerns The two neighbors affected by the fence construction called with concerns about the proposed overheight fence. Ms. Dottie Fink, who lives at 3656 Carlsbad Way on the - north side of the Deike family, called to indicate her concerns with the fence design and consistency of the proposed fence with other fencing along her property lines. Mr.Carl Pretzel,at 3633 Glacier Court North,also has expressed concern with the design and height o:the proposed fence,and the conformance of the proposed fence design with - • other fencing along his prole.iy. Ms. Fink and Mr. Pretzel share about a 16 foot length of - rear property line with each other(please refer to the attached location map)._ - - -I, - - Ms.Dottie Fink,3656 Carlsbad'Way Ms.Fink indicated In a telephone conversation with staff in July that she is not _ - necessarily opposed to the taller 6'11" fence replacing the existing fence. It is staff's impression that she would prefer a fence to be located on the property lino rather than . • creating a situation where one fence is located against the other and where she would see the Deikes'fence protruding above the existing fence. Ms. Fink indicated that her real - - concern is how the new,taller fence(if located on the property line)would look in -relation to her rear property line fence which would be almost two feet shorter; she feels ' Case No.Z-98-21 I ZoningAdminlstrator fi= -Page 3 — — —: • _.--- _ _