HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6368-A Staff AnalysisJune 29, 1998
Item No.: C
File No.
Owner•
Address:
Description•
Zoned•
Variance Reguested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
proposed Use of Propert :
Staff Re ort•
A. Public Works Issues:
Z -6368-A
Patricia Coker
1610 Beechwood
Lot 10, Cliffewood
R-2
A variance is requested from the
fence height provisions of Section
36-516 to permit a fence which
exceeds 6 feet in height.
The fence will be built on top of a
retaining wall which is needed to
level the yard. The fence is
needed to provide screening from
the neighbor's garage, wood pile
and dog pen.
Single Family home,__ under
construction
Single Family home
In the event any work is required in the easement, the
property owner is required to remove or relocate the fence
at his own cost.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is constructing a new single family home on
the R-2 zoned property located at 1610 Beechwood. As part
of the project, the applicant proposes to construct a 4 foot
tall retaining wall along a portion of the south property
line. The retaining wall will allow the applicant to raise
the ground level on the west side of her property to be more
in line with the ground level on the east side. The
applicant also proposes to construct an 8 foot tall brick
and wood fence on top of the retaining wall. On the
applicant's side the fence will be 8 feet above grade.
Section 36-516 limits the height of such fences in
residential districts to 6 feet.
June 29, 1998
Item
C.
Cont.
If it were simply a case of requesting a privacy fence 2
feet above what the code allows, staff could be more
supportive. However, there is an issue which must be taken
into consideration. The 8 foot tall brick and wood fence is
to be built on top of a 4 foot tall retaining wall. The
retaining wall is located'on the property line between the
applicant's property and the adjacent residence to the
south. Once the wall and fence are completed, the structure
will be 12 feet tall when viewed from the adjoining
property. The applicant states that the fence is needed to
screen activities on the neighboring property. Remembering
that the neighboring property will be 4 feet below the new
grade of the applicant's property, staff believes that a 6
foot privacy fence will provide sufficient screening. The 6
foot fence, above the finished grade of the applicant's
property, is allowed by right. Even at that height, the
structure will be 10 feet tall when viewed from the
neighbor's property.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested fence height
variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JANUARY 26, 1998)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
No notices had been done by the applicant. Staff informed the
Board that the applicant requested that the item be deferred to
the March 30, 1998 Board meeting to allow for completion of the
retaining wall and yard work. Once that is done, the applicant
will decide whether to pursue the 8 foot tall fence.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the
March 30, 1998 Board meeting by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent and 3 open positions.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
The applicant was not present. There were
No notices had been done by the applicant.
Board that the applicant was requesting a
June 29, 1998, to allow for completion of
wall.
(MARCH 30, 1998)
no objectors present.
Staff informed the
second deferral, to
the house and retaining
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the
June 29, 1998 meeting by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
2
June 29, 1998
Item No • C (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 29, 1998)
The applicants, Bill and Patricia Coker, were present. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the item.
Patricia Coker addressed the Board in support of her request.
She stated that her landscape architect had originally suggested
an 8 foot fence to be built on top of the 4 foot retaining wall.
Ms. Coker stated that she was now asking for a fence not to
exceed 6 feet above the retaining wall. Ms. Coker presented
several photographs showing the area in question, focusing on the
neighbor's dog pen and carport area. She stated that the fence
would be concealed from the neighbors by the neighbor's carport.
In response to a question from Brandon Rogers, Ms. Coker stated
that the neighbors were supportive of the original request for
the 8 foot tall fence.
William Ruck asked Ms. Coker to describe the proposed fence. Ms.
Coker stated that, although the final design had not been
decided, she envisioned a wood fence supported by brick columns.
Mr. Coker restated that the fence would not exceed 6 feet above
the retaining wall.
There was a brief discussion about whether it was appropriate to
measure the height of the fence above grade on the Coker's side
or on the neighbor's side.
Mr. Coker restated that his desire was to provide some visual
relief from the neighbor's dog pen, trash area and open carport.
He noted that his neighbor had no problem with the originally
proposed 8 foot tall fence.
In response to a question from William Ruck, the Coker's stated
that the fence would not obstruct the neighbor's view.
Brandon Rogers and Gary Langlais expressed support for the
proposed fence.
A motion was made to approve a 6 foot tall
top of the 4 foot retaining wall subject to
constructed in "good neighbor" fashion (the
out). The motion was approved by a vote of
0 absent.
3
fence to be built on
the fence being
finished side facing
5 ayes, 0 noes and