HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6448 Staff AnalysisJanuary 26, 199 8
.. 7
File No.
Owner:
Address:
Descriptio
zoned:
escri tiozoned:
variance Re ested:
Justification:
Present Use of Propel:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-6448
Jim Warren
4801 Lee Avenue
Lot 1, Block 1, Reutlinger Addition
PIM]
variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-253
to permit a deck with a reduced
side yard setback and the fence
height provisions of Section 36-516
to permit a fence exceeding 4 feet
in height.
The deck and fence were constructed
without knowledge that they
violated city code.
Single Family residence
Single Family residence
The R-3 zoned property at 4801 Lee Avenue is occupied by a
one-story frame single family residence. As part of recent
remodeling of the residence, a deck was added to the side of
the house and a 6 foot privacy fence/screen was built on the
deck. The structure has a setback from the Monroe Street
side property line of 3-4 feet. The Code requires a side
yard setback of 5 feet for this lot. A portion of the
privacy fence is not on the deck itself. This fence also
has a setback of 3-4 feet. Section 36-516 of the code limits
the height of fences within required setbacks adjacent to
streets to 4 feet.
Staff believes the variance request to be reasonable. The
deck was built in an area which had previously been enclosed
by an older 6 foot tall privacy fence. The deck and privacy
fence have a setback of 13 feet from the curb of Monroe
Street and should have no impact on traffic in the street.
January 26, 1998 '
No.: 7 (Cont.
Staff does not believe the deck and fence will have an
adverse effect on adjacent properties.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and fence
height variances subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1. The deck is to remain unenclosed other than by the 6
foot privacy fence/screen.
2. The deck is to remain uncovered.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT•
(JANUARY 26, 1998)
Jim Harney was present representing the applicant. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation
of approval, with conditions as noted above. Staff noted that
the required notices were signed on January 21 and 22, 1998,
which did not meet the 10 day notice requirement.
Mr. Harney stated that there was confusion over the notice issue
but no one in the area objected to the proposal. He stated that
he was removing the requested fence variance and would only do a
screen on the deck itself.
After a brief discussion, a motion was made to waive the notice
requirement and to accept the notices as done for the item. The
motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and
3 open positions.
A motion was made to approve the requested setback variance for
the deck. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent and 3 open positions.
E