HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6303 Staff AnalysisMay 19, 1997
Item
File No.•
Owner:
Address:
Description•
Zoned•
Variance Re[ruested:
Z-6303
Jeff Parry and Jamie Lowdermilk
222 Linwood Court
Lot 13, Block 1, Crystal Court
Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from the
fence provisions of Section 36-516
to permit construction of a fence
which exceeds 6 feet in height.
Justification: Applicant's Statement: Jeffrey P.
Parry and Jamie Lowdermilk,
hereafter referred to as the
applicants, propose a variance from
the Little Rock Zoning ordinance in
order to build a level fence
between the following listed
properties and property owners:
Jeffery P. Parry & Jamie Lowdermilk
222 Linwood Court
Ralph and Candace Burns
220 Linwood Court
Peggy Tucker
217 Colonial Court
Jay and Rosemary McLarty
306 Linwood Court
At the request of adjoining
property owner Peggy Tucker (317
Colonial Court) to share expenses
in replacing the present fence
between our properties with a
substantially sturdier version for
the safety of our family pets and
also at the request of adjoining
property owners, Ralph and Candace
Burns, to have unrestricted access
to the north side of their garage
property located at 220 Linwood
Court (1.31), the applicants
May 19, 1997
Item No.: 5 Cont.
request to build a fence that will
at points, as -indicated on the
enclosed survey, reach a height of
over 6 feet.
The west portion of property at 222
Linwood Court slopes at an
approximate fall off of 1.5 feet
from north to south. The south
portion of property running
parallel to the stucco garage at
220 Linwood Court outlined in the
enclosed survey (222 Linwood
Court), slopes at an approximate
fall off of 3 feet from east to
west. In order to build an
esthetically pleasing fence for all
adjoining property owners and one
that will remain level across the
top, the fence will reach an
approximate height of 8 feet at the
southwest corner property of 222
Linwood Court.
For the safety of the applicants
pet, a dog, who lives in the
proposed fenced area, as well as
consideration of the property owner
at 317 Colonial Court, Peggy Tucker
and her pets, two dogs who live in
her backyard, we have determined
that a minimum- height of 6 feet is
needed for the fence. In addition,
after communication with the Burns'
regarding access to their property,
we believe that this is the
appropriate course for the
applicants to follow in order to
fairly and equitably provide access
to the adjoining property owners
land (Ralph and Candace Burns).
The applicants appreciate your
review of this variance and hope
that you will accept this variance
for a fence between the above
outlined properties. The fence
will be a combination of open
lattice and solid fencing in order
to permit air flow through the
yards, again, with the pets health
and comfort in mind. Please note
that no part of the fence will be
directly viewable from the streets,
2
May 19, 1997
Item No.: 5 Cont.
Present Use of Pro ert :
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues
B. Staff Analysis:
either Colonial Court or Linwood
Court.
Single Family
Single Family
The owners of the residence located at 222 Linwood, working
with their adjacent neighbors at 220 Linwood and 217
Colonial Court, proposed to enclose their rear yard with a
privacy fence. Due to the slope of the property, the fence
will be approximately 8 feet tall at the southwest corner of
the property. By having the increased height at this point,
the fence will remain level across the top. Section 36-516
limits fences to 6 feet in height in cases such as the
applicant's.
Staff believes the proposal to be reasonable. The fence
will only reach 8 feet in height at or near the southwest
corner of the property. This is a project agreed to by the
abutting property owners. The increased height will have no
impact an adjacent properties.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested height variance
to allow an 8 foot tall fence as proposed by the applicant.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 19, 1997)
The applicants, Jeff Parry and Jamie Lowdermilk, were present.
There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of approval. Mr. Parry stated that he accepted
staff's recommendation.
A motion was made to approve the requested height variance. The
motion.was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
3