HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-9239 Staff AnalysisJULY 31, 2017
ITEM NO.: 4
File No.: Z-9239
Owner/Applicant- Thomas M. Arthur and Meredith A. Castleberry
Address: 1730 Lilac Circle
Description: Lot 16, Riverside Addition
Zoned: R-3
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section
36-516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height
allowed.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-3 zoned property at 1730 Lilac Circle is occupied by a one-story brick and
frame single family residence. The property is located on the east side of Lilac
Circle, south of Lilac Terrace. There is a one -car wide driveway from Lilac Circle at
the southwest corner of the property. There is an existing six (6) foot high wood
fence along the rear (east) property line. Chain-link fencing is located along the
north and south side property lines within the rear yard area. The rear yard portion
of the lot slopes downward slightly from west to east (front to back).
The applicant proposes to construct an eight (8) foot high wood fence along the north
and south side property lines, within the rear yard area, as noted on the attached
site plan. The existing six (6) foot high wood fence along the rear (east) property line
will remain. The applicant is proposing the eight (8) foot high fence for privacy, given
the slope within the rear yard area. The applicant has also noted that the taller fence
will help keep his dog from jumping the fence into the neighbor's rear yard.
Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allow a maximum fence height
of six (6) feet within the rear yard area of this residential lot. Therefore, the applicant
is requesting a variance to allow an eight (8) foot high wood fence along the north
and south side property lines within the rear yard area.
JULY 31, 2017
ITEM NO.: 4 CON'T.) _ _ Z-9239
Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance. Staff views the request
as reasonable. The applicant is requesting the higher fence due to the slope within
the rear yard area. Eight (8) foot high fencing has increasingly become a popular
fence height in single family areas. Eight (8) foot high fences provide an increased
level of screening and privacy over the typical six (6) foot fence height. Additionally,
only approximately 150 linear feet of new fencing is proposed for this residential lot.
Staff believes the requested eight (8) foot high wood fencing along the two (2) side
property lines will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general
area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(July 31, 2017)
Thomas Arthur was present, representing the application. There was one (1) objector
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval, as filed.
Thomas Arthur addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained that the
additional fence height was needed for privacy reasons. He noted that the fence would
not be out of character with the neighborhood.
Pat Proctor, of 1728 Lilac Circle, addressed the Board in opposition. She explained that
she was not opposed to the proposed fence height, but she did not approve of the fence
tying into the front corner of the house, instead of the rear corner where the existing chain-
link fence is located. She noted that the fence extending toward the front corner of the
house next to her driveway would make it difficult for her to get her car door open and
impact the access to her trash can.
Mr. Arthur explained that the fence extending along the south side of the house would
provide privacy for the two (2) windows located on the south side of the house. He noted
that there was ample room for car doors to be open with the proposed fence location.
Carolyn Lindsey Polk asked about allowed fence height. Staff explained the ordinance
fence height requirements.
There was a motion to approve the fence height variance, as filed. The motion passed
by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The application was approved.
2