11 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

- 1 Again, however, stall'feels that the proposed 7'3" height of the fence really is not in keeping with the fence heights of the adjoining properties. Rut because Mr. Deike's lot is at a slightly lower elevation.staff feels that it would be appropriate that the rear fence be allowed to exceed the standard 6 loot height to provide the Deikes with additional privacy. In this case, staff feels that a 6'6" fence( as measured from the Deikes'side) -_-- • would he most appropriate since it would appear as just a little over 6' from Mr. Pretzel s side which would he a standard fence height for property line fences, --------- • Stafl•concurs that the 6'3" and 6'6" it has proposed as a compromise solution would not — match the heights of the current fencing along Ms. Fink's and Mr. Pretzel's other property - • lines. However, stuff feels that the proposed heights are not so much different than a standard six foot tall fence that normally would be located along the property lines. If 1 they,or their other neighbors were to install new property line fencing, it would be likely _ . that the fencing would be installed at the standard height of 6 feet. The new fencing which staff has suggested, then, would not be very dissimilar to any other standard - fencing. Staff has suggested a range in the fence height for Mrs. Fink should she want the rear corner of her side fence to match the 6'6"height of the rear property line fence of i Deike/Pretzel. and then scale the fence down to 6'3" as the fence continues towards the front of her property. In staffs opinion, the change in fence height along Mr. Pretzel's rear fence for the remaining two panels not shared with Mr. Deike would not be detrimental and probably not significantly displeasing visually. The existing fencing does not appear to be consistently 6' in height across the entire length of the property line and may have h-en installed originally at" lower height. It is not uncommon for fences to settle or, as in the case of the fence along Mr. Pretzel's rear property line,to sag to uneven heights over time,although superior construction would help to prevent such problems. _ Although Mr. Deike has proposed placing his new fencing adjacent to the existing fences -- -- in an effort to allow Ms. Fink and Mr. Pretzel to retain their existing fences,staff cannot -- - — i support this method from practicef and aesthetic standpoints. It would be difficult for _ property-owners to maintain their fences unless the fences were separated by three to five _ -.__"_ -- feet to allow both property owners access to each side of their fence. Mr. hike would _ --- -__ need to grant and record maintenance and access easeme, is across;.,is property to allow Mr. Pretzel and Ms. Fink to maintain that side of their fences. Ftaff can foresee other issues with such an arrangement such as who maintains the area betwer the fences,what is considered proper maintenance,how often maintenance should occur,etc. By placing - . -- new fencing 3-5'inside of his own property lines, Mr. Deike would lose usable portions __ of his yard which seems an overly restrictive way to resolve a fencing issue. " • Aesthetically,the taller new fence would stick up above the older fencing which staff• • - thinks would be unattractive from Ms. Fink's yard and Mr. Pretzel's yard, Because the -- c ti, Case No. Z-9R•dt! - on,ng°" .��O - - ZonfngAdminfah'alor Page.4 -- ..,.-. . k I, .