Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6388 Staff AnalysisSeptember 29, 1997 Item No.: 8 File No.: Owner• Address• Description- Zoned• Variance Requested: Justification: Z-6388 Julie G. Poe 9806 Temple Drive Lot 91, Ellis Acres R-2 A variance is requested from the fence height provisions of Section 36-516. Applicant's Statement: My reasons for this need of a 10 foot fence are few, but good reasons none the less. The reasons are as follows: 1. Personal Safety. on the other side of my fence is a two dog, dog pen containing 1 large Rottweiler and 1 large pit bull. This dog is the primary reason for the fence. Since my new ownership, (July, 24th) I have NEVER been able to enjoy my backyard. This particular dog is of an usually strong and viscous breed. Reasons for owning one is beyond me. It certainly is not security, for the dogs are ALWAYS kept -in the pen. This dog can and does flat-footedly jumps up and straddles the fence. (This is a 6' pen he is straddling) I would be defenseless, as well as my small dog and cat, not to mention small child. (5 year old). The very nature of this breed of dog cannot be trusted. Think of the results. 2. Noise. These two dogs bark at nearly eve movement. They often fight with each other which escalates the sound level. I feel this fence will cut down on the noise considerably, although not all of it. 3. Stench. These are large dogs whose pens are only hosed out. I cannot describe the smell. Please September 29, 1997 Item No.: 8 (Cont. Present Use of Pro ert : Proposed Use of Pry ert : Staff Report: A. Public works Issues: No issues. H. Staff Analysis: use your imaginations. It is not something anyone should be exposed to. I work hard for a living and to have this smell invade my living area is a crime. I have spoken with several of my neighbors and we have all agreed on my need for a 10' fence. On a final note, my parents who live close by and visit frequently, are both deaf. They would have no warning whatsoever of an attack by the dog. Single family residence Single family residence The owner of the R-2 zoned property located at 9806 Temple Drive proposes to construct a 10 foot tall privacy fence to enclose her rear yard. Section 36-516 of the city code limits the height of fences in residential districts to 6 feet. The rear yard is currently enclosed by a 4 foot tall chain-link fence. The applicant states that the fence is needed primarily to shield her property from the dogs located on the property adjacent to the rear. The applicant states that the noise, stench and personal safety concerns created by these dogs has made it impossible for her to use her own back yard. She has submitted photographs showing one of the dogs climbing nearly over the existing chain link fence. Staff sympathizes with the applicant's plight and believes it is not unreasonable to allow her to construct a privacy fence in excess of 6 feet in height. However, staff believes that enclosing the rear yard with a 10 foot tall privacy fence is not compatible with development in this single family neighborhood. Staff believes it is more reasonable to erect an 8 foot tall privacy fence along the rear property line and to keep the fence at 6 feet tall on the side property lines. This should provide an adequate barrier between the applicant and the property to the,rear while not creating a "fortress" atmosphere which would stand K, September 29, 1997 No.: 8 (Cont. out in this residential neighborhood. Fences in commercial and industrial zones are limited to 9 feet in height. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the variance request to allow construction of a 10 foot tall privacy fence. Staff recommends that the fence be limited to 8 feet tall across the rear property line and 6 feet tall on the side property lines. Staff also recommends that the fence be designed with the finished side facing outward. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 1997) The applicant, Julie Poe, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and recommended denial of the requested 10 foot tall privacy fence. Ms. Poe addressed the Board. In light of staff's opinion. Ms. Poe stated that she would like an 8 foot tall fence around her rear yard. She stated that the neighbor's dog had recently climbed the fence and entered her yard. Ms. Poe stated that she feared for her safety and called the authorities. She presented photographs of the incident (staff did not receive these photos). Kirby Rowland asked if she was willing to accept a fence 8 feet tall on the rear and 6 feet tall on the sides, as recommended by staff. Ms. Poe reiterated that she would prefer 8 feet on all sides. Ann Palmer stated that she sympathized with Ms. Poe's plight but that she supported staff's recommendation There was then further discussion of Ms. Poe's need for a taller fence and whether a dog could climb a 6 foot wood fence. Assistant City Attorney Cindy Dawson stated that there were other, less drastic, means of dealing with nuisance dogs. Ms. Poe stated that she did not want to pursue legal action against her neighbor. She asked the Board to consider allowing a 7 foot tall fence on the sides. Chairman Alderfer stated that the Board appeared to be leaning towards support for staff's recommendation. Ann Palmer suggested that Ms. Poe also pursue other avenues to deal with the dog. Chairman Alderfer called the vote on the item as recommended by staff; an 8 foot tall privacy fence on the rear property line and 3 September 29, 1997 Item No.: 8 (C 6 feet tall on the sides, subject to the finished side of the fence facing outward. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. 4