CC Min 1994-08-01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

The Property is operated by the applicant as a care facility for the elderly, and has been so operated for approximately fourteen (14) years. The appropriateness of the use of the Property is not at issue on this appeal. 3. Appellants filed a timely appeal from the granting of a variance. Appellants have lodged with the City Clerk a petition in support of the appeal bearing the signatures of persons owning, or having some interest in, properties in the vicinity of the Property (including the signature of Appellants). 4. The ramp is proposed to facilitate access by the elderly residents of the Property to the deck area, which area extends along the Property line contiguous with Appellants' property. 5. As an elderly person care facility, visitors frequent the Property. The use of the ramp in conjunction with the decked area increases the intensity of use of the side yard adjacent to Appellants' property. 6. Appellants, and the occupants of Appellants' residence, have experienced intrusion upon their privacy by the residents and visitors of the Property. Such intrusion includes staring into the windows of Appellants' property, waving, gesturing, or otherwise acknowledging interest in, and scrutiny of, Appellants' property and the occupants thereof. 7. The proposed ramp would allow persons exiting the French doors the opportunity to linger at an elevation above the ground sufficient to intrude further upon the privacy of Appellants by engaging in the above-described conduct. Further, said ramp would encourage more extensive use of the decked area than now exists, likewise to the detriment of Appellants' tranquillity. 8. The installation of stairs, in lieu of the ramp, would lessen the aforesaid intrusion upon the privacy of Appellants. Appellants do not object to the installation of stairs. 9. The evidence is conflicting as to whether the elevation of the deck is one-foot or less throughout the entire area over which it extends. The staff report indicates that a portion of the deck area does exceed the one-foot limitation of Section 32.11d. Statements at the hearing suggest that the entire area of the deck may not exceed said limitation. 10. The existing fence between the Property and Appellants property extends to a height of six feet. The variance as granted by the Zoning Administrator requires, as a condition thereof, that said fence shall be increased to a height of seven feet. 11. Extension of the height of the fence to seven feet will, to some extent, reduce the intrusion by the residents and guests of the Property upon the privacy of Appellants. '-- MINUTE BOOK NO. 52 Page No. 342 Regular Meeting Minutes August I, 1994 Page 8