My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
May 2001
sbend
>
Public
>
Historic Preservation
>
Meeting Minutes
>
HPC Meeting Minutes 2001
>
May 2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2019 1:16:22 PM
Creation date
6/8/2020 10:10:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
South Bend HPC
HPC Document Type
Minutes
BOLT Control Number
1001402
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
93
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
applicant would retain the existing 3' tall fencing and would place the 6' tall fencing <br />several feet inside of it. The new fence would effectively enclose the back yards of both <br />lots into one large enclosed back yard. If a house sat on this side lot, the effect the fences <br />would have is as follows. The new fencing would enclose only the back yards and the <br />front yards would be enclosed by the existing picket fence. Since there is no house, there <br />the owner is proposing to landscape the front yard to help buffer the impact of the 6' <br />fence. The owners are requesting to enclose the rear yard because they have two large <br />dogs and because of the amount of trespassing that occurs over the 3' tall cement block <br />fence that adjoins the alley. The request to fence in a rear yard and side yard with a 6' <br />tall privacy fence is with in the guidelines and is something the Commission has <br />approved in the past. When fencing is visible because of large side yards the <br />Commission often requests that it be buffered by trees or shrubs. The owner is requesting <br />the same thing; the only difference is that the side yard is an entire second lot. The new <br />fence would not protrude past the rear line of the house and would be buffered by <br />vegetation. The staff finds the application to be with in the guidelines and recommends <br />approval. <br />This property is also located with in the W. Washington Design Review area and <br />as such will require consideration by Design Review. The guidelines for this area state <br />that major landscaping items, fencing. must be compatible with the character of the <br />neighborhood in size, scale, material and color and that no type of fencing is allowed in <br />the front or side yard and only fencing that is absolutely needed based on security/privacy <br />will be approved in the rear yard. This house already has fencing in the rear, side and <br />front, none of which will be affected except the small portion located by the driveway. <br />The owner definitely has privacy & security issues by being located on such a busy <br />intersection with full view of their property from both sides as well as the added security <br />issues of being adjacent to an alley. <br />The Commission does not abide by these guidelines, however, the Commission <br />should be aware of how Design Review may perceive this project. The staff <br />STRONGLY SUGGESTS THAT ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS GO OUT AND <br />VIEW THIS PROPERTY PRIOR TO OUR MEETING IN ORDER TO MAKE AN <br />INFORMED DECISION ON THIS MATTER. <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.