Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7134 Staff AnalysisFebruary 25, 2002 ITEM NO.: A File No.. Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Anal sis: Z-7134 Alan C. Wray 8103 Leawood Boulevard Lot 139, Leawood Heights Second Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the fence regulations of Section 36-516 to allow construction of a six (6) foot tall privacy fence between a required building setback and a street right-of-way. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residence Single Family Residence The property at 8103 Leawood Boulevard is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There are single family residences to the north, west, south across Louwanda Drive and east across Leawood Boulevard. The applicant recently began construction of a six (6) foot high wood privacy fence along the Louwanda Drive side of the property. The fence extended beyond the 25 foot building setback line and into the street right-of-way. Consequently, the City's February 25, 2002 Item No.: A enforcement staff issued a notice to cease the fence construction, which was complied to by the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow construction of a six (6) foot high wood privacy fence which extends beyond the 25 foot street side setback along Louwanda Drive. The proposed fence will extend from the rear corner of the house to the Louwanda Drive property line, along this property line to the rear property line, and back to a newly constructed privacy fence located behind the 25 foot setback line. According to Section 36-516(c)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance, fences constructed within the required setback adjacent to streets are limited to four (4) feet in height. Staff is not supportive of the variance as requested. Staff's inspection of the property revealed that the proposed fence would create no sight -distance problems for vehicular traffic. However, the single family residences immediately west of this site, which front on Louwanda Drive, will have a front yard relationship with the proposed fence. Staff feels that the proposed six (6) foot privacy fence extending to the property line along Louwanda Drive will have a negative visual impact on these adjacent properties. However, staff could possibly support a revised application which would move the fence further back from the street side property line. Another possible solution would be to construct, at the location proposed by the applicant, a four (4) foot high solid wood fence with an additional two (2) feet of wood lattice. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not support the variance to allow construction of a six (6) foot high wood privacy fence between the required building setback and the street right-of-way, as proposed. 2 February 25, 2002 Item No.: A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the February 25, 2002 agenda. Staff noted that the applicant failed to complete the required notifications to surrounding property owners. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the February 25, 2002 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 25, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and noted that the applicant had revised the application according to staff's suggestion. The revision included construction of a four (4) foot high solid wood fence with two (2) additional feet of wood lattice between the platted building line and the property line (Louwanda Drive side). Staff noted support of the revised application subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction. 2. The fence must be a good neighbor fence, with the structural supports on the inside. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as revised by the applicant and recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 3