HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7894 Staff AnalysisJULY 25, 2005
ITEM NO.: 10
File No.: Z-7894
Owner: Mr. And Mrs. James H. Hill, Jr.
Applicant: Jim Hill
Address: 8721 Ranch Blvd.
Description: Lot 155 R, The Ranch Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of
Section 36-516 to allow a fence 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: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 8721 Ranch Blvd. is occupied by a one-story
brick single family residence which was recently constructed. The,
property is located at the southeast corner of Ranch Blvd. And Lanes
End Drive. There is a two -car wide driveway from Lanes End Drive
which serves as access. The rear yard of the lot slopes upward from
west to east and north to south. The existing residences to the south
along Lanes End Drive are at a slightly higher elevation.
The applicant is proposing to construct a six (6) foot high wood fence to
enclose the rear yard area of the lot, as noted on the attached site plan.
The proposed fence will extend across a 25 foot platted side building
JULY 25, 2005
ITEM NO.: 10 (CON'T,
line, and be located between the building line and the Lanes End Drive
right-of-way.
Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows fences in
residential zones which are located between a building setback lines
and a street rights-of-way to have a maximum height of four (4) feet.
Other residential fences may be constructed to a height of six (6) feet.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the proposed
six (6) foot high fence between the 25 foot platted side building line and
Lanes End Drive.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels the portion
of the fence located along the west property line, between the 25 foot
building line and the street is out of character with the neighborhood.
Staff noticed no similar fence encroachments in the immediate area.
Additionally, the fence extending to the west property line would be
located in the front yard of the residence to the south. Staff feels this
would cause an adverse visual impact on that property, and because of
the curve of the street, the fence could cause a site -distance problem
with vehicles exiting the driveway at 8721 Ranch Blvd.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested fence height variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 25, 2005)
Jim Hill was present, representing the application. There was one (1)
objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial.
Jim Hill addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that the
fence as proposed would restrict visibility when backing out of his driveway.
He presented a sketch to the Board with two (2) alternate locations for the
fence between the platted building line and the west property line. He noted
that the fence was needed for security for his grandchildren.
There was a brief discussion of the two (2) alternate fence locations.
John Chappelle, the owner of the property immediately to the south,
addressed the Board in opposition to the application. He expressed
opposition to a six (6) foot high fence along his side property line running to
the sidewalk.
2
JULY 25, 2005
ITEM NO.: 10 (CON'T.
There was additional discussion of the proposed alternate fence location.
Chairman Francis stated that he could support the six (6) foot high fence
running from the west side of the sidewalk at the southwest corner of the
house (crossing the platted building line by approximately two (2) feet)
southward to the point where the platted building line intersects with the south
(rear) property line. Mr. Hill revised the application accordingly.
There was a motion to approve the revised application, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The fence is to be a good -neighbor type, with the face side outward.
2. There is to be no additional fencing along the south property line,
between the platted building line and the west property line.
The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. The
revised application was approved.
3