Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7996-A Staff AnalysisAPRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z -7996-A Owner/Applicant: Larry Dorn Address: 22 Carriage Creek Drive Description: Lots 107 and 108, Phase II, Carriage Creek Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence/wall provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a masonry 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: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 22 Carriage Creek Drive is occupied by a two-story brick single family residence. There is a two -car wide concrete driveway from Carriage Creek Drive which serves as access. The residence occupies two (2) platted lots. The house is located within the west lot, with the driveway and accessory garage building being located on the east lot. As part of the driveway construction, the applicant recently constructed masonry walls along the sides of the driveway and along the east property line as noted on the attached site plan. On February 27, 2006 the Board of Adjustment approved a variance to allow the increased wall height for the masonry wall near the front property line, between the 25 foot front platted building line and Carriage Creek Drive. The approval was conditioned on the masonry wall along the east property line being lowered to a height not exceeding six (6) feet or applying for a variance for that wall. APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 4 ICON'T. The applicant has filed a second application and is requesting a height variance for the masonry wall along the east property line. The wall has a height of 14 feet at its north end, as measured from the low side (east side). The wall tapers back to heights of 9.8 feet and 8 feet, and ties into an existing 6 foot high wood fence near the southeast corner of the property. Three (3) sections at the north end of the wall have been notched out to have wrought iron fence sections inserted. The masonry wall runs for approximately 75 linear feet along the east property line. Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence/wall height of six (6) feet for fences/walls along interior property lines, and not between a building setback lines and street rights-of-way. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the existing masonry wall along the east property line with heights ranging from 14 feet to 8 feet. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance, as filed. Staff views the request as unreasonable. Staff feels the overall height of the masonry wall is not in keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood. Staff believes the 14 foot height at the front corner of the wall presents a negative visual impact on the property immediately to the east. However, it is typically staff's policy to support fence/wall heights in residential up to eight (8) feet. Staff feels that an overall height of eight (8) feet would be acceptable in this situation, and could support a variance to allow the wall to be reduced to eight (8) feet in height. The applicant has submitted letters of support from the property owners at 20, 21 and 26 Carriage Creek Drive, which are attached for Board review. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested fence/wall height variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006) Larry Dorn was present, representing the application. There were several persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial, as filed. Larry Dorn addressed the Board in support of the application. He gave a description of the existing wall along the east property line. He noted that when he purchased the property he did not agree to be in a neighborhood association and explained. He stated that his immediate neighbors were in support of the application. Chairman Francis explained that the City does not enforce Bills of Assurance. K APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006 CON'T.) Robert McFarlane addressed the Board in opposition. He noted that the wall in question was a structural wall and not a decorative wall, and questioned the structural integrity of the wall. He explained that he would like to see engineered drawings of the wall. He also noted that the driveway was too wide. L.K. Moore, of the Carriage Creek Homeowners' Board, addressed the Board in opposition. He presented the Board with 52 letters from neighborhood residents. Forty- eight of the letters opposed the variance for increased wall height and four (4) of the letters did not oppose the wall construction. He stated that the Dorns had paid property owners association dues. Phyllis Moore also addressed the Board in opposition. She noted that she was a 14 year resident of Carriage Creek. She explained that her main concern was property values. She noted that efforts had been made in the past to uphold the neighborhood's bill of assurance and City codes. She also explained that the walls were not needed when the house was constructed. Mr. Dorn noted that he could move the wall back eight (8) feet to meet the minimum side setback for structures, and construct the wall to a height up to 35 feet. The issue of lowering the wall height was discussed at length. Mr. McFarlane and Mr. Moore made additional comments against the application. Chairman Francis explained that he could support a maximum height of 8'-9". Staff suggested a condition to include updating the building permit with accurate valuation of the construction, and an updated survey to include correct wall heights and grading notes. There was a brief discussion as to the time which should be allowed for the wall to be lowered. Mr. Dorn noted that he could do it within 60 days. There was a motion to approve the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. The maximum overall height of the wall (or wall/fence) shall not exceed 8'- 9", as measured from the low side of the wall (east side). 2. The building permit must be updated to include the following: a. Correct valuation of the wall construction. b. Updated survey to include correct wall heights (overall property). c. Grading information/cross sections. 3. The wall height must be lowered within 60 days. The motion passed with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The revised application was approved. M