HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6437 Staff AnalysisDecember 22, 1997
File No.
Owner:
Address:
Descriptio
zoned:
escri tiozoned-
Variance Requested:
justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
z-6437
David May
52 Ranch Ridge Drive
Lots 80 and 81, The Ranch
R-2
A variance is requested from the
fence height provisions of Section
36-516 to permit construction of a
privacy fence exceeding 6 feet in
height.
The slope of the property causes
the fence to exceed 6 feet in
height.
Single Family residence (under
construction)
Single Family residence
Drive is to be 25 feet from exterior corner lot lower at
intersections.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is constructing a new single family residence
on the R-2 zoned property at 52 Ranch Ridge Drive. The
property consists of two lots, the uphill lot where the
house is and a down hill lot which serves as an extended
rear yard. The applicant proposes to enclose the rear yard
and a portion of the side yard with a privacy fence. The
fence meets code requirements at all points but one, the
side yard between 52 Ranch Ridge and the lot to the west.
Due to the extreme slope of the property, portions of the
fence on this side property line will vary from 8 feet to
11.5 feet in height. The code limits the height of fences
in residential districts to 6 feet.
In this particular case, the requested fence height is not
unreasonable. Because of the substantial difference in
terrain, the fence at its tallest point will come only to
the finished floor level of the house being constructed on
December 22, 1997
Item No.: 10(Cont.)
the adjacent lot. Even with the increased height, no real
"privacy" will be afforded by the fence on this side line.
The applicant has worked with the owner of this adjoining
property to assure that the fence will not impede the view
from the neighboring property. A beautiful view of Pinnacle
Mountain is available from these lots.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height
variance subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with Public Works Comments
2. The fence is to be designed with the finished side
facing out
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(DECEMBER 22, 1997)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Public Works Comments.
2. The fence is to be designed with the finished side facing
out.
Staff also presented a letter from Larry Goins, owner of the
adjacent lot, in which Mr. Goins stated that he did not have a
problem with Mr. May designing the fence with the "back side"
facing his property. The letter outlined two issues that had
been agreed to by Mr. Goins and Mr. May regarding construction of
the fence.
Mr. May offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for approval as
recommended by staff, with the modification outlined in Mr.
Goins' letter. The vote was 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 open
positions.
E