HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7035 Staff AnalysisMay 21, 2001
Item No.: 9
File No.
Owner:
Address:
Des cri tion:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
proposed Use of Proper
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Z-7035
Ethan and Lara Schock
1711 N. Palm Street
Lots 21, 22 and part of 23,
Cliffewood
R-2
A variance is requested from the
fence height provisions of Section
36-516 to permit construction of an
8 foot tall fence.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
1. Fence on Cantrell Road side should be moved to the
building line. This is a structure rather than a fence
and adequate traffic safety zone should be provided.
2. Fence on utility easement side should also be moved
outside utility corridor (AP&L and gas) to provide room
for future maintenance on utility easement side.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property located at 1711 West Palm Street is
occupied by a two-story, brick and frame, single-family
residence. The property is located at the corner of N. Palm
Street and Cantrell Road, with a side yard relationship to
Cantrell. The applicants propose to construct an 8 foot
tall wall./fence along a portion of the east property line
and the north (Cantrell Road) property line. Fences/walls
erected within setbacks adjacent to streets are limited by
the Code to a maximum of 4 feet in height. Other fences,
May 21, 2001
Item No.: 9 (Cont.)
such as the one along the east property line
exceed 6 feet in height. Depending on cost,
may be a combination of brick, wood and iron.
are not to
the fence/wall
Staff has concerns about the proposal, particularly about
erecting an 8 foot tall wall/fence along Cantrell Road.
This portion of Cantrell Road is already characterized by a
large number of tall fences/walls built close to the street.
Most of those were built prior to the fence/wall regulations
becoming part of the zoning ordinance. The visual effect of
this series of tall walls is that of driving through a
tunnel. Staff questions the appropriateness of continuing
that trend. The applicant is allowed to erect a 4 foot tall
wall/fence along the Cantrell Road perimeter by -right.
Staff believes allowing a minor variance permitting a 6 foot
tall fence/wall along the Cantrell perimeter is reasonable.
A 6 foot tall fence/wall would provide privacy from passing
vehicles and would provide as much sound barrier as an 8
foot tall structure. Noise protection will be better
obtained by planting trees and tall, fast growing shrubs
inside of the fence. Along the eastern perimeter, a 6 foot
tall fence/wall is permitted by -right. Again, staff does
not believe adequate justification has been presented to
support an 8 foot tall fence/wall.
Where the Planning Staff has concerns more from an aesthetic
and visual perspective, the Public Works staff's concerns
are more pragmatic. Their concern centers upon allowing any
structure of this design (brick and iron possibly) because
it creates a safety hazard due to its proximity to the
traffic lanes on Cantrell. The lanes are very close due to
an inadequate right-of-way. There may be possible support
for a wood fence only.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff cannot support the application, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 21, 2001)
The applicant, Kay Anderson, and Architect John Allison were
present representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item and outlined the concerns of
both the Planning and Public Works Departments.
F
May 21, 2001
Item No.: 9 (Cont.)
Kay Anderson addressed the Board and presented photographs of
other walls in the area. She stated she had lived in the
neighborhood 28 years and had not found the walls along Cantrell
to create a "tunnel effect." Ms. Anderson stated that the walls
were segmented. She made reference to several walls that she
stated were 7 1-� - 12 feet in height. Ms. Anderson referenced
Public Works concerns and stated the wall was not directly on the
curb line. She stated that she felt it would be better if a car
leaving the road hit the wall rather than entering the yard and
hitting a child. Ms. Anderson stated she had considered moving
the wall back to the 8 feet side yard setback but decided against
it because: 640 square feet of yard would be lost, there are 2-3
large trees in the way, east bound motorists would then see the
neighbors tall stone wall jutting out and that wall would become
a safety hazard.
Ms. Anderson, Mr. Allison and the Board then looked at proposed
plans for the wall.
Norm Floyd asked about access by the gas company to an apparatus
the utility company had in the back corner of the yard.
Ms. Anderson responded that access through the yard would be
provided for the utility.
Ms. Anderson presented a letter from Kurt Knickrehm, of 1801
Shadow Lane. In his letter, Mr. Knickrehm voiced his support for
the variance. Mr. Knickrehm had himself received a variance to
construct a similar wall on the Cantrell Road perimeter of his
property. In the letter, Mr. Knickrehm extolled the virtues of
having the wall.
Norm Floyd stated he agreed with all of the issues presented by
Ms. Anderson but that he could not support an 8 foot tall fence.
He stated he agreed with staff that 6 feet was tall enough.
Ms. Anderson responded that the two additional feet of wall
height would provide more of a sound barrier.
In response to a request from William Ruck, Mr. Allison presented
a rendering of the proposed wall. He described it as being 711"
in height with regularly spaced, 7111" columns or piers. Norm
Floyd commented that the wall, if approved, would have to be
built as shown in the rendering. In response to a question,
Mr. Allison stated the columns or piers extend 4" beyond the face
of the wall.
Tad Borkowski, of Public Works, stated that Traffic Engineering
wanted an 8 foot safety zone between the traffic lanes and the
3
May 21, 2001
Item No.: 9 (Cont.)
wall. Mr. Borkowski also stated the Master Street Plan required
a right-of-way of 55 feet from centerline.
Fred Gray asked if it was better to keep an out of control
vehicle in the road or to allow it to veer off into a yard.
Mr. Borkowski stated he could not answer that question. Norm
Floyd interjected that he could speak to that issue. He stated
it was better to have a wall to hit at an angle rather than to
hit a tree or another obstruction head-on.
Fred Gray stated he supported the variance as a safety issue and
that he was more comfortable with the 711" height rather than an
overall height of 81.
Scott Richburg voiced reservations about voting for the variance.
He stated he would prefer to see the wall pulled back. Mr.
Richburg stated he did not see strong justification for the
variance.
A motion was made to approve the variance request subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1. The wall along the east perimeter of the site is to be built
outside of the easement.
2. Access is to be provided for the utility companies.
3. The wall along the north (Cantrell) perimeter is to be
designed as shown in the rendering presented by and described
by the applicant and her architect.
The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 1 noe and 0 absent.
4