HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7557 Staff AnalysisDecember 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 9
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 Analysis:
Z-7557
Dorothy E. West
4305 Cobb Street
Lot 8, Block 96, John Barrow Addition
R-2
Variances are requested from the fence
provisions of Section 36-516 to permit a
chainlink fence (with barbed wire) which
exceeds the maximum height allowed.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
The R-3 zoned property at 4305 Cobb Street is occupied by a one story
frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from Cobb
Street which serves as access. There is an alley right-of-way located
along the east property line.
The applicant recently began installing a six (6) foot high chain link fence,
with three (3) strands of barbed wire, around the perimeter of the lot. Part
of the fence has been installed along the east property line, with metal
fence poles set along the other property boundaries. The applicant notes
in the attached letter that the fence is needed for security purposes.
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.
Section 36-516(e)(1)a., of the City's Zoning Ordinance, allows a maximum
fence height of four (4) feet between a building setback line and a street
right-of-way. Section 36-516(d) reads as follows:
"For purposes of this section the use of barbed, concertina
wire or other types of wire specifically designed to inflict
injury upon human contact is prohibited except when used at
the top of fences at least six (6) feet above grade enclosing
business or manufacturing premises. When such wire is
used, it shall not extend outside the vertical plane of the
enclosed property. Electrically charged fences are
prohibited."
Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow the six (6) foot
high chainlink fence within the front 25 feet of the lot, and to allow the use
of barbed wire.
Staff supports the variance to allow the six (6) foot high chainlink fence
around the perimeter of the site, specifically within the front 25 -foot
building setback. Chainlink fences enclosing front yards are fairly
common within this general residential area. The fence, being of chainlink
construction, should have no adverse visual impact on the adjacent
properties. However, staff does not support the use of barbed wire on
fences within residential areas. Staff feels that barbed wire should only be
used in commercial and industrial areas, as it presents possible
unreasonable hazards to persons, especially children, in residential
neighborhoods.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance,
subject to a permit being obtained for the fence construction.
Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to allow the use of
barbed wire.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 2003)
David West was present, representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval (with
condition) of the fence height variance, and denial of the variance to allow the
use of barbed wire.
2
December 22, 2003
NO.: 9 (Cont.
David West addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained the
security issues associated with the requested fence with barbed wire.
Terry Burruss noted that the top of the chain link could be turned up instead of
using barbed wire. Mr. West stated that he had not considered that. He noted
that the barbed wire represented a visual deterrence.
Chairman Ruck asked if Mr. West's mother lived alone. Mr. West indicated that
she did.
Fred Gray stated that he was concerned with the applicant's safety, but did not
support the use of barbed wire.
There was a motion to approve the requested fence height variance, as
recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The
variance was approved.
There was a second motion to approve the variance to allow the use of barbed
wire. The second motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes and 5 nays. The second
variance was denied.