9/4/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

s ` . iL, Jet, sx w If , 11 The purpose of the county ' s front yard 4' fence height limitation is related to aesthetics and safety . In regard to aesthetics, the 4' maximum prevents the negative visual effect of "walled" streets ( the canyon effect) that could result from allowing 6' tall fences at or near front yard property/right-of- way lines . In regard to safety, tall front yard fences can "hide" vehicles that are exiting residential sites until such vehicles are already beyond the front property line and out into the road right-of-way. Tall front yard fences may make house number identification more difficult for emergency services purposes. For these aesthetic and safety reasons, the county has had a long-standing requirement that front yard walls and fences along local roads be limited to a maximum height of 4' . LDR section 917 . 06( 12)(E) provides a specific site-by- site exception to the 4' fence height limitation. That section allows staff-level (administrative) approval of a height exception if staff determines that the increased height is reasonably necessary for security purposes, given the site location, and if staff determines that the higher fence or wall is "visually compatible" with existing conditions in the surrounding area. Under section 917 . 06 ( 12)(E), visual compatibility is to be determined based upon the presence and extent of existing walls and fences in the area and the height and characteristics of those walls and fences . An area where taller front yard fences and walls already exist is an area where a taller wall or fence may be approved. • Carlton Denial Staff' s denial letter states that there is inadequate justification under 917 . 06( 12 ) to approve the request. In staff' s opinion, the request did not meet the security purposes test and the visual compatibility test. Both must be met for approval . The Planning and Zoning Commission decision now under appeal upheld this reasoning . In regard to the security purposes test, Mrs . Carlton ' s appeal letter ( see attachment #5 ) provides various reasons for the request. Staff' s summary of Mrs . Carlton ' s security-related reasons is as follows : • At the residence, there are two children and two dogs that could climb or jump a 4 ' tall fence . • In an adjacent stormwater pond, there are alligators that may be able to climb a 4' tall fence . • There is heavy traffic at the site. • The lot ' s "safe" play area that is already legally enclosed by a 6' wood fence ( area approximately 80' wide and 22'-37' deep) could be made larger by granting the request. In response to these points, it should be noted that a 6' tall, secure privacy fence has already been built on the lot in compliance with normal chapter 917 height and setback requirements, and that the approximately 80' wide fenced area is normal for a typical RS -3 lot. There are no security issues unique to the site that are not true for other lots in the subject subdivision and for other lots in the RS -3 district, generally. Although the site is uniquely situated within the subdivision along a road that temporarily dead ends at an undeveloped adjacent tract, such a situation is not unique within the county . In fact, temporarily dead-ended streets are occasionally developed in various areas of the county . Mrs . Carlton ' s letter does not specifically address visual compatibility, although the letter states that the proposal seemed reasonable to two staff planners who had been contacted by her, and that the stormwater area that is across the street from the proposed front yard fence is used for overflow parking of neighborhood vehicles. Staff' s response is that there are no visual compatibility reasons September 4 , 2001 52 BKII9PG330 1 : 736ff Y * S 5 r q ..2'. . .. .. . .. . 1 , x . .. _ .c .. .. .