4710 GARDNER AVE 2018-05-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

. , the trail and in their yard. (Cunnirrgham comments) One comment nofied fhat the Applicanfis' cleanup of avergrawn vegetafiion on-site had improved visibility and thus safety for pedestrians using the trail by improving their ability to see around the Ocean/Shore corner. (Exhibit 6) 13. Two comments expressed opposition or concern regarding the fence on the west lat line. One stated that the six-foot solid fence in the 20-foofi front setback along Ocean Avenue (the trail) "takes away from the open feeling quality possessed by ofiher yards on the street". The second objected to placement of the fence within the Ocean right-of-way (calling it an easement), primarily concerned with foot trafFic being pushed closer to residences on the afiher side of the trail. Neither commented on the height of the fence in the 20-foot front sefiback and neither commented on the south fence. {Exhibif 6, Stengel and Sfraub camments rn opposifion) Planning Staff noted that the comment abaut placing the fence in the easement was likely cancerning an earlier proposaf by the Applicants ta vacate a portion of the unopened right-of-way far inclusian in their property; however, the Applicants did nof pursue righfi-of-way �acatian in order to preserve the existing, well-used trail. (Ingalsbe Testimony; Travis Jorgenson Tesfrmony) 14. The Applicant testified that the party who cammented aboufi the reduced "open feeling" lives approximatefy a rnile from the subject property. According to a survey prepared at the expense of the Applicants, the fence is on the subject property line, not located within the Ocean right-of-way. (Travis Jorgenson Tesfimony; Exhibit 2) 15. The Applicants indicated that there are #hree properties in the immediate vicinity with over height fences. They also offered photographs of the front yards ot five properties in the neighborhaod_ The photographs show yards that are surrounded by sight-obscuring (not transparent} vegetation and/or solid wafls. (Exhibits 5 and 8; Jorgenson Testimony) '16. Planning Staff testified that the purpose of the transparency requirement in fronfi yard setbacks is to prevent a "wall effect". Staff noted that the requirement currently applies in a specific core area in the City and that the subject property is not within the identified core; hawever, the transparency requirement is planned to be expanded to the entire City at a future date. {Ingalsbe Testrmony) 17. The Applicants noted that the "wali effect", if any, is mitigated by the presence of a large laurel that at feast partially blocks view of the six-foot fence where it comes clasest to Gardner/Shore Avenues. (Exhibif 5, Figure 3; Jorgenson Testimony) 18. Pfanning StafF indicated that #he City's traffic engineer had been consulted and had verbaliy indicated to P{anning Staff that it is unlikely Ocean Avenue would ever be developed inta a street, as it is not needed fio provide access or utilities to any lot. The City's traffic engineer did nat indicate that the existing fence along the west lot line presented any trafFic safety concerns. (Ingalsbe Testimony) � 4 � � �j