HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7461-A Staff AnalysisNOVEMBER 29, 2004
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.: Z-7461 -A
Owner: Sidney M. Thom Living Trust — Sidney M. Thom, Trustee
Address: 2300 Country Club Lane
Description: Lot 7 and 8, Block 11, Country Club Heights Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence/wall provisions of
Section 36-516 to allow a wall which exceeds the. maximum height allowed.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
Single Family Residential
1. The proposed fence is shown to be in an abandoned alley right-of-way. No
comments.
B. Analysis=
The R-2 zoned property at 2300 Country Club Lane is occupied by a two-story
brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from
Country Club Lane which serves as access. On September 29, 2003 the
Board of Adjustment approved variances associated with a room/garage
addition at the northwest corner of the home. The addition is under
construction and nearing completion.
As part of the new building construction, the applicants have constructed a 7
foot -3 inch tall masonry wall along the rear property line, at the southwest
corner of the property. The new wall runs for approximately 25 feet along the
rear property line and will enclose a small garden area. Masonry columns
associated with the new wall extend approximately one (1) foot higher than the
main wall structure.
NOVEMBER 29, 2004
ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.
Section 36-516(d)(e)1. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum
fence/wall height of six (6) feet along interior lot lines. Therefore, the applicant
is requesting a variance to allow the 7'3" wall height.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the variance request
as very minor. The wall as proposed will not be out of character with other
fences and walls in this general area. The last section of wall at the southwest
corner of the property does not exceed the maximum height as allowed by
ordinance. Staff feels that this short wall section that exceeds the maximum
height allowed will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the
general area.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence/wall variance, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:_ (NOVEMBER 29, 2004)
Sidney and Emily Thom were present, representing the application. There was one
(1) person present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of
approval.
Emily Thom addressed the Board in support of the application. She explained the
wall construction, noting that the residents to the west considered the wall an asset.
She explained the topography of the lot. She also explained the existing wall height
and stated that it enhanced the neighborhood.
Andrew Francis asked about the slope of the lot. Mrs. Thom explained that the
southwest corner of the lot was the lowest point and had been filled in over the
years.
Diane Lord addressed the Board in opposition. She explained concerns with the
wall height. She also discussed the change in grade between her property and the
Thom's property.
There was a brief discussion about the new wall section to fill the gap between the
new wall and the existing wood fence along the Thom's south property. Staff
indicated an understanding that the filler section would have a maximum height of
six (6) feet with a column extending one (1) foot higher. This issue was discussed
further.
There was some discussion as to whether the existing fence along the Thom's south
property line was actually on the property line or on Mrs. Lord's property. In
2
NOVEMBER 29, 2004
ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.
response to a question from Andrew Francis, Deborah Weldon, City Attorney, stated
that the Board could not address a property dispute. This issue was discussed
further.
There was additional lengthy discussion related to the filler wall section. Mrs. Thom
explained that it was their intent to construct the filler section to be the same height
as the existing wood fence along their south property line, with a column extending
no more than one (1) foot higher. It was determined that the filler section needed to
be approximately 7 feet-4inches in height. Chairman Gray noted that a variance
would be needed for the filler section and explained.
Chairman Gray asked Mrs. Lord if she objected to the filler section being the same
height as the existing wood fence. Mrs. Lord asked about the angled wall section.
Mrs. Thom explained that they planned to raise this wall section in order to hide an
existing wood fence to the west. It was determined that the angled section would
need to be raised 5 to 7 brick courses. Chairman Gray explained that the angled
section would also have a height approximately the same as the existing wood fence
along the Thom's south property line. There was additional discussion of this issue.
Staff summarized the requested wall construction as follows:
1. The existing two (2) wall sections along the west property line and existing
four (4) columns would remain as is.
2. The angled wall section would be increased in height (probably 5 to 7 brick
courses) to match the height of an existing wood fence to its west.
3. The new filler wall section would be no taller than the existing wood fence
along the Thom's south property line (approximately 7 feet-4inches), with
one (1) additional column extending no more than one (1) foot higher.
Chairman Gray asked Mrs. Lord if she was clear on the wall issue as explained and
summarized by staff. Mrs. Lord stated that she was clear on the issue. She stated
that she did not want the new column to exceed the height of the existing wood
fence. She stated that she did not want this wall construction to set a precedence
for future additional wall sections along the Thom's south property line.
Mrs. Thom officially amended the application to include height variances for the filler
wall section with column, and the increase in the height of the angled section.
There was a motion to approve the revised application, as summarized by staff and
noted above. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The
revised application was approved.
3