Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6684 Staff AnalysisAugust 30, 1999 Item No.: 4 File No. Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Z-6684 W. Dent Gitchel & Charlotte M. John 5801 S. Country Club Lot 105, Forest Heights Place R-2 A variance is requested from the fence height provisions of Section 36-516 to permit an 8 foot tall privacy fence. Justification: Applicant's Statement: There is a previously existing (20 year old) 8 foot privacy fence that extends 18' across the back of the lot (south side) and also extends 48' along the side of the lot (western side). After checking the bill of assurance and finding no height restriction on fences and after noticing several other 8' fences within a block of our property, we extended the 8' fence along the western lot line another 48' to a point 1.5' behind the front corner of the house and then connected the 8' fence to the house with a 9.5' section. We removed an old 10' section of the fence. The house next door is only 20' away and its kitchen and living area look down into our baths and 2 bedrooms. The house next door is several feet higher than our house. Both our bathrooms and 2 bedrooms (including our master bedroom) face August 30, 1999 ' Item No.: 4 (Cont.) the new fence. Our main bath has a large bay -type window with the toilet next to the window. We are now able to open the blinds in these rooms. Otherwise, the window coverings must always be closed. A 6' fence would not provide the needed privacy. By extending the existing fence we have retained the uniformity of the fence line. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: This issue is before the Board as a result of action by the Codes Enforcement Staff. The owner of the property located at 5801 South Country Club has recently erected an 8 foot tall privacy fence on the property line between his home and the home directly to the west. The new fence ties into an existing fence which encloses the applicant's rear yard and extends to the front wall of the house. The fence was erected without proper authorization and permits. Section 36-516 of the Code limits fences in residential zones to a maximum height of 6 feet. The applicant was issued a notice by the Codes Enforcement staff advising him of the violation. He subsequently filed for a variance. The applicant has stated that the increased fence height is necessary to provide privacy. Both bedrooms and bathrooms are located on the west side of the applicant's house. The house on the property adjacent to the west is at a slightly higher elevation which allows persons in that adjacent house to see over a 6 foot tall fence into the applicant's 2 August 30, 1999 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) bathrooms and bedrooms. An 8 foot tall fence provides screening, allowing the applicant to be able to open the blinds in these rooms. The new fence ties into an existing 8 foot tall fence which encloses a portion of the applicant's rear yard. The fence has been constructed in "good neighbor" fashion, with the finished side facing outward, and is not unsightly. A driveway on the adjacent property provides adequate separation between the applicant's fence and the adjacent house, helping to mitigate the impact of the increased fence height. Staff believes the variance request to be reasonable. The applicant must conform to building codes permit requirements. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance subject to the applicant obtaining the required building permit within 10 days of the Board's action. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 1999) The applicants, W. Dent Gitchel and Charlotte John, were present. There were two objectors present. A letter had been received from Robert Bennett, of 5816 Stonewall, in which Mr. Bennett questioned the appropriateness of the proposed variance. Mr. Gitchel addressed the Board in support of his application. He stated that he had purchased and moved into the home 3 months prior to this date. Mr. Gitchel stated that an 8 foot tall fence extended around the rear yard and partially up the side yard with a 10 foot tall section of fence connecting from the side yard to the house. Mr. Gitchel stated that he had removed the 10 foot tall section and continued the 8 foot tall fence further up the side yard to provide privacy. Mr. Gitchel stated that he had properly notified all property owners within 200 feet. Mr. Gitchel presented photographs of his fence and of other fences in the neighborhood which exceeded 6 feet in height. In response to a question from the Board, Mr. Gitchel stated that it appeared no building permit was obtained for the fence. Marcie Kidd, of 5805 S. Country Club, spoke in opposition to the variance. Ms. Kidd stated that she had lived at 5805 S. Country Club for 27 years and none of the previous owners of 3 August 30, 1999 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) 5801 S. Country Club had privacy problems. She also presented photographs of the fence. Ms. Kidd stated that she was opposed to the 8 foot tall fence and that she felt privacy could be better obtained by installing blinds or shades on the windows. Ms. Kidd stated that she was not opposed to the fence extending as far as the bathroom window. William Ruck asked Mr. Kidd if she was opposed to an 8 foot tall fence specifically or any fence. Ms. Kidd responded that she would rather there not be a fence at all. She commented that the applicant's fence was already warped and unsightly. Margaret Wilhelm, of 617 Hall Drive, spoke in opposition. Ms. Wilhelm stated that she used to live at 5808 S. Country Club and that there had never been a fence like that proposed by the applicant on S. Country Club. Ms. Wilhelm stated that there were other means to provide privacy beyond an 8 foot tall fence. Ms. Wilhelm noted that all of the homes in the area are close together because of the narrow lot widths. Charlotte John stated that they would maintain the fence and that it would be stained to match the house. Ms. John commented that they had spent much money on the fence and did want to see it deteriorate. In response to a question from the Board, Dana Carney of the Planning Staff, explained that the code allowed the applicants to erect a 6 foot tall fence on the property line, extending several feet past the front of the house, to the 25 foot building line. Norm Floyd asked the applicant if he would accept an 8 foot tall fence as far as the bathroom window with the fence dropping down to 6 feet tall at that point and extending to the front of the house. Mr. Gitchel responded that he would prefer to keep the 8 foot tall fence as was submitted in the application. The Chairman called the question on the variance request to have an 8 foot tall fence. The vote was 1 aye, 3 noes and 1 absent. The variance request was denied. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has requested a rehearing. As required by the Board's bylaws, a written request was received by staff within 10 days of the Board's denial. The applicant has amended his request to conform to the suggestion offered by the neighbor and at least one Board member. A rehearing can only be granted if a 4 August 30, 1999 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) motion is made to approve a rehearing and that motion is carried by unanimous vote of all members present at the meeting. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 26, 1999) The applicant was present. Staff presented the item as a request for rehearing. The applicant, Charlotte John, addressed the Board. Ms. John stated that an agreement had been reached with the two persons who were in opposition at the June 28, 1999 meeting. A motion was made to grant a rehearing at the August 30, 1999 Board meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The application has been amended to conform to a compromise that was met with the next door neighbor, Marie Kidd. The fence will cut back to a height of 716" , the height of the previously existing fence. The fence will extend up the west side property line only to a point north of the bathroom windows but south of the bedroom window, not to the front of the house as was previously proposed. Both objectors from the June 28, 1999 meeting have agreed to this compromise. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the application as amended to conform with the compromise met with the next door neighbor subject to the applicant obtaining the required building permit within 10 days of the Board's action. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 30, 1999) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and recommended approval of the application as amended to conform with the compromise met with the next door neighbor subject to the applicant obtaining the required building permit within 10 days of the Board's action. 5 August 30, 1999 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 6