Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6924-C Staff AnalysisMay 20, 2002 ITEM NO.: 5 File No-- Z -6924-C Owner: Walter Quinn Address: 5500/5508 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Lots 13 and 14, Block 33, Newton's Addition Zoned: C-3 and 0-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to permit a brick wall which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analvsis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Vacant Commercial Building Branch Bank The property at 5500 Kavanaugh Boulevard (northwest corner of Kavanaugh and Polk Street) is zoned C-3 and 0-3. There is an existing one-story commercial building within the C-3 portion of the property, with the 0-3 portion being vacant. A structure was recently removed from the 0-3 portion. There are single family residences located north of the site, with a bank across Polk Street to the east and commercial uses along Kavanaugh Blvd. to the west. The new Kroger Store development is located across Kavanaugh Blvd. to the south. On July 30, 2001 the Board of Adjustment approved a variance from the buffer requirements of Section 36-522 for a proposed branch bank development. The proposed branch bank facility is to utilize the existing May 20, 2002 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) commercial building and construct covered drive through lanes on the west side of the building on the 0-3 zoned portion of the property. On January 28, 2002 the Board of Adjustment approved variances for reduced setbacks for porch additions along the south and east sides of the existing commercial building. The approved site plan for this property included a six (6) foot high brick wall along the north property line and a six (6) foot high screening fence along the west property line. The applicant recently constructed the brick wall along the north property line and the wood fence with brick columns along the west property line. Because of a slight slope, the wood and brick fence along the west property line is six feet — ten inches at the southwest corner of the property, sloping back to six (6) feet at the property's northwest corner. The brick wall along the north property line has a height of six (6) feet at the northwest corner of the property and a height of seven feet — four inches at the property's northeast corner. These measurements are as viewed from the bank's side of the wall. Because of a change in grade between this property and the single family property immediately north, the wall as viewed from the single family property has a height of approximately eight feet — four inches. Section 36-516(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of six (6) feet for the fence/wall along the north and west property lines of the bank site. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this standard. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The increased wall height along the north property line will aid in screening the adjacent residential property from the bank use. The wall will also reduce the amount of noise and lighting that may be generated by the bank's 24 hour ATM drive-thru. Staff feels that the increased height of the brick wall along the property's north property line and the wood fence with brick columns along the west property line will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence/wall height variance, as filed. 6 May 20, 2002 Item No.: 5 Cont. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 20, 2002) David Porter and Susie Smith were present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. David Porter addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained the reasons for constructing the fence and wall to the existing heights. He noted that the slope variation of the bank property and the change in grade between the bank property and the property to the north as reasons for the resulting fence/wall heights. Chairman Ruck asked if any of the fencing was transparent. Mr. Porter stated that it was not and explained. Gary Langlais asked how close the brick wall was to the nearest house. Mr. Porter explained that the wall was approximately 15 feet from the nearest residence. Blair Fortner, of 2018 N. Polk Street, addressed the Board in opposition to the application. He noted that the master bedroom of his house was approximately 8.5 feet from the wall. He noted that the wall was 9 feet — 1 inch in height, with 6 inch caps as measured from his side of the wall. He explained his reasons for opposing the proposed wall height. He stated that the property owner knew the wall would not be in compliance when it was being constructed. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if a reduction in the wall height would be acceptable. Mr. Fortner stated that he would like the wall height reduced and explained. Andy Francis asked Mr. Fortner what the maximum height he would accept as measured from his side of the wall. Mr. Fortner explained that a seven (7) foot height would be acceptable and explained. Andy Francis asked where the height of a fence is measured.. Staff noted that fence height is measured from both sides of a fence or wall. There was additional discussion related to this issue. Chairman Ruck asked the applicant if the extra fence/wall height was considered an advantage. Mr. Porter noted that the bank desired to have a level wall and have the six (6) foot wall height measured from the bank side of the wall in order to provide the maximum screening and explained. This issue was briefly discussed. 3 May 20, 2002 611111111116 Me, # There was a general discussion relating to tearing down part of the wall structure. Susie Smith, representing the application, noted that it was the bank's intent to comply with the City's screening requirements and make the wall a minimum of six (6) feet in height on the bank side of the wall. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if there would be a problem aesthetically with stepping the wall height down from west to east. Ms. Smith stated that there would be no problem other than cost. Vice -Chairman Gray noted that some sections of the wall may be higher than seven (7) feet if there is an attempt to step the wall downward from west to east. Mr. Fortner stated that he understood and explained. Ms. Smith noted that the bank was trying to comply with the City's screening requirement. Chairman Ruck noted that the Board could vote on the application as filed, or consider an amended application by the applicants. He asked the applicants if they would be willing to amend the application. Mr. Porter noted that the application could be amended and explained. Chairman Ruck asked the applicants and Mr. Fortner to meet outside the Board room and discuss possible amendments to the application. The public hearing of this item was briefly recessed. The public hearing was reconvened. Mr. Porter addressed the Board and noted that the and Mr. Fortner had reached and agreement, and that the application would be amended. Mr. Porter noted that the application would be amended as follows: 1. The wall along the north property line will be stepped downward from west to east. 2. Each section of the wall (along the north property line) will have an average height not to exceed seven (7) feet, not including columns, as measured from the north side of the wall. There was a motion to approve the application as amended by the applicant. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The amended application was approved.