11 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

' , • S '-` -\ property line fence without special approvals from the City. Fences over six feet in t height,no twitter where they are located in a side or rear yard.do require approval by the Zoning Administrator. _In regard to Ms. Fink's concerns. staff feels that the fence which Mr. Deike has proposed ____-3_ would be a design and structural improvement over her existing fence. From Mr. Deike's description,staff feels that the new fence would he more substantial and probably of -otnewhat better overall quality than the existing fence. And,just by virtue of being new, it would last longer than the current fence, Stall is sensitive to Ms. Fink's previous - experience with a good neighbor lapped board fence but staff feels that nailing the boards -- /' I in place would help to ensure that the fence materials would not fall out or warp. Staff Irecommends a condition of approval which would require Mr. Deike to nail all vertical i lapped boards to the horizontal supports and to each other to prcv..nt warping. Staff ibelieves that a new fence designed as Mr. Deike has proposed, installed in place of the existing fence,and on the property line would he of benefit to both Ms. Fink and Mr. Deike, However,staff feels that the proposed 611 I" fence probably is too tall compared with the height of the existing knee along this properly line and compared to the fence . height along Ms. Fink's rear property line. Staff feels that a 6'3"- 6'6"(sec below) fence - - • would be less imposing for Ms. Fink and would not he so obviously tall compared to other fencing, but it would be tall enough for her own privacy and should be tall enough • to afford the Deikes enough privacy on this side of their yard. (Mr. Deike has remarked to staff that, given his height, a 6'high fence would not afford as much privacy for his neighbors from him, which is one reason be has proposed higher fencing). • Similarly, staff reels that a new rear property line fence would be of benefit to Mr. Pretzel • ' and the Deikes. Staff cannot support Mr. Pretzel's wish that any ne,v property line fence be built to the same specifications as the existing fence since it does not meet staffs • criteria as a "good neighbor" fence with all of its exposed structural elements located only on the Dei'<es side. It is general City policy to ensure that each neighbor receives the same amount of non-structural and structural portions of the fence so no one neighbor has the most attractive portion of the fence facing his or her yard. Hence,the City encourages— • the construction of good neighbor fencing throughout the City. Staff feels that Mr. _-_ Deike's proposed fence design meets the criteria of a good neighbor fence. A new fence - = would resolve the sag problem of the existing fence,could maintain an even height along the entire length of the shared property line, would seem to be more substantial compared to the existing fence,and would last for a longer time,just by virtue of being new. Staff ' supports removal of the existing fence and replacement with the fence design as proposed- -_--- by Mr. Deike. • -- =T cuwuNo 2.982dt.. - - - - - - Zoning Al�ii;IglJrr4ror te; Page 5 . - -- - — s: • ' • .. .f.. r ' . • . .